LIBRARY 

A£  Ol  •   TH1C 

University  of  California. 

(  il  H'T   <  >F 

Received        x/h^tmr,  ,  189&. 

^Accessions  No.   S3Jy&        Class  No. 


J 


~H 


\ 


V 

4 


j 


V 


V 


vi  jx  *i    sts 


v 


1 


\ 


1 

i 


1 

v 


^ 


mi     WmMMkM 


*^^^£A~W     iS 


"^  ^r-^u^ 


^^y,  /<£q3 


~> 


Vivisection 


BY 

ALBERT  LEFFINGWELL,  M.  D. 


'   OF  THE 


1JSIVBR3ITY; 


&K 


Of 

PO' 


NEW    YORK  : 

JOHN  W.   LOVELL  COMPANY, 
14  and  16  Vesey  Street. 


«v.?n 


S93f& 


TO 


21  iHemorg  of  Jruntoljtp. 


PREFACE. 


To  the  Century  Company  of  New  York,  in  the  pages 
of  whose  magazine,  then  known  as  "  Scribners 
Monthly"  the  first  of  the  following  essays  originally- 
appeared  in  July,  1880,  the  thanks  of  the  writer  are 
due  for  permission  to  re-publish  in  the  present  form. 
For  a  like  courtesy  on  the  part  of  the  proprietors  of 
Lippincott's  Magazine,  in  which  the  second  paper  was 
first  published  [Aug.,  1884],  the  writer  desires  to  make 
due  acknowledgment. 


OF  TH 


TJNIVEn   IT 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  first  of  the  Essays  following-  appeared  in 
"Scribner's  Monthly,"  in  July,  1880;  and  imme- 
diately became  honored  by  the  attention  of  the 
Medical  Press  throughout  the  country.  The  aggres- 
sive title  of  the  paper,  justified,  in  great  measure, 
perhaps,  the  vigor  of  the  criticism  bestowed.  Again 
and  again  the  point  was  raised  by  reviewers  that  the 
problem  presented  by  the  title,  was  not  solved  or 
answered  by  the  article  itself. 

At  this  day,  it  perhaps  may  be  mentioned  that  the 
question — "Does  Vivisection  Pay?"  was  never 
raised  by  the  writer,  who  selected  as  his  title  the 
single  word  "Vivisection."  The  more  taking  head- 
line was  affixed  by  the  editor  of  the  magazine  as  more 
apt  to  arrest  attention  and  arouse  professional  pug- 
nacity. That  in  this  latter  respect  it  was  eminent- 
ly successful,  the  author  had  the  best  reason  to  re- 
member. With  this  explanation — which  is  made 
simply  to  prevent  future  criticism  on  the  same  point 
— the  old  title  is  retained.     If  the  present  reader  con- 

p»I7E  -71 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

tinues  the  inquiry  here  presented,  he  will  learn 
wherein  the  writer  believes  in  the  utility  of  vivisec- 
tion, and  on  the  other  hand,  in  what  respects  and 
under  what  conditions  he  very  seriously  questions 
whether  any  gains  can  possibly  compensate  the 
infinitely  great  cost. 

"What  do  you  hope  for  or  expect  as  the  result  of 
agitation  in  regard  to  vivisection  ?  "  recently  inquired 
a  friend  ;    "its  legal  abolition  ?  " 

' '  Certainly  not, "    was    the  reply. 

"Would  you  then  expect  its  restriction  during  the 
present  century  ? " 

"  Hardly  even  so  soon  as  that.  It  will  take  longer 
than  a  dozen  years  to  awaken  recognition  of  any 
evil  which  touches  neither  the  purse  nor  personal 
comfort  of  an  American  citizen.  All  that  can  be  hoped 
in  the  immediate  future  is  education.  Action  will 
perhaps  follow  when  its  necessity  is  recognized  gen- 
erally ;  but  not  before." 

For  myself,  I  believe  no  permanent  or  effective 
reform  of  present  practices  is  probable  until  the 
Medical  Profession  generally  concede  as  dangerous 
and  unnecessary  that  freedom  of  unlimited  experi- 
mentation in  pain,  which  is  claimed  and  practiced 
to-day.  That  legislative  reform  is  otherwise  un- 
attainable, one  would  hesitate  to  affirm  ;  but  it 
assuredly  would  be  vastly  less  effective.  You  must 
convince  men  of  the  justice  and  reasonableness  of  a 


INTRODUCTION.  j 

law  before  you  can  secure  a  willing  obedience. 
Yielding  to  none  in  loyalty  to  the  science,  and 
enthusiam  for  the  Art  of  Healing,  what  standpoint 
may  be  taken  by  those  of  the  Medical  Profession  who 
desire  to  reform  evils  which  confessedly  exist  ? 

I.  We  need  not  seek  the  total  abolition  of  all  ex- 
periments upon  living  animals.  I  do  not  forget  that 
just  such  abolition  is  energetically  demanded  by 
a  large  number  of  earnest  men  and  women,  who 
have  lost  all  faith  in  the  possibility  of  restricting  an 
abuse,  if  it  be  favored  by  scientific  enthusiasm. 
''Let  us  take/'  they  say,  "the  upright  and  conscien- 
tious ground  of  refusing  all  compromise  with  sin 
and  evil,  and  maintaining  our  position  unflinchingly, 
leave  the  rest  to  God."  *  This  is  almost  precisely  the 
ground  taken  by  the  Prohibitionists  in  national  poli- 
tics ;  it  is  the  only  ground  one  can  occupy,  provided 
the  taking  of  a  glass  of  wine,  or  the  performance  of 
any  experiment, — painless  or  otherwise, — is  of  itself 
an  "  evil  and  a  sin. "  There  are  those,  however,  who 
believe  it  possible  to  oppose  and  restrain  intemperance 
by  other  methods  than  legislative  prohibition.  So 
with  the  prohibition  of  vivisection.  Admitting  the 
abuses  of  the  practice,  I  cannot  yet  see  that  they  are 
so  intrinsic  and  essential  as  to  make  necessary  the 
entire  abolition  of  all  physiological  experiments 
whatsoever. 

*  Report  of  American  Anti-Vivisection  Society,  Jan'y  30,  1888. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

II.  We  may  advocate  (and  I  believe  we  should 
advocate) — the  total  abolition,  by  law,  of  all  mutilating 
or  destructive  experiments  upon  lower  animals,  involving 
pain,  when  such  experiments  are  made  for  the  purpose 
of  public  or  private  demonstration  of  already  known 
and  accepted  physiological  facts. 

This  is  the  ground  of  compromise — unacceptable, 
as  yet,  to  either  party.  Nevertheless  it  is  asking 
simply  for  those  limitations  and  restrictions  which 
have  always  been  conceded  as  prudent  and  fair  by 
the  medical  profession  of  Great  Britain.  Speaking  of 
a  certain  experiment  upon  the  spinal  nerves,  Dr.  M. 
Foster,  of  Cambridge  University,  one  of  the  leading 
physiological  teachers  of  England,  says  :  "I  have 
not  performed  it  and  have  never  seen  it  done, "  partly 
because  of  horror  at  the  pain  necessary.  And  yet 
this  experiment  has  been  performed  before  classes 
of  young  men  and  young  women  in  the  Medical 
Schools  of  this  country  !  Absolutely  no  legal  restriction 
here  exists  to  the  repetition,  over  and  over  again,  of 
the  most  atrocious  tortures  of  Mantegazza,  Bert  and 
Schiff. 

*  *  * 

This  is  the  vivisection  which  does  not  "pay," — 
even  if  we  dismiss  altogether  from  our  calculation  the 
interests  of  the  animals  sacrificed  to  the  demand  for 
mnemonic  aid.  For  the  great  and  perilous  outcome 
of  such  methods  will  be — finally — an  atrophy  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

sense  of  sympathy  for  human  suffering.  It  is  seen 
to-day  in  certain  hospitals  in  Europe.  Can  other 
result  be  expected  to  follow  the  deliberate  inflic- 
tion of  prolonged  pain  without  other  object  than  to 
see  or  demonstrate  what  will  happen  therefrom? 
Will  any  assistance  to  memory,  counterweigh  the 
annihilation  or  benumbing  of  the  instinct  of  pity  ? 

Upon  this  subject  of  utility  of  painful  experiments 
in  class  demonstrations  or  private  study,  I  would 
like  to  appeal  for  judgment  to  the  physician  of  the 
future,  who  then  shall  review  the  experience  of 
the  medical  student  of  to-day.  In  his  course  of 
physiological  training,  heorshe  maybe  invited  to  see 
living  animals  cut  and  mutilated  in  various  ways, 
eviscerated,  poisoned,  frozen,  starved,  and  by  ingen- 
ious devices  of  science  subjected  to  the  exhibition  of 
pain.  On  the  first  occasion  such  a  scene  generally 
induces  in  the  young  man  or  young  woman  a  signifi- 
cant subjective  phenomenon  of  physiological  interest ; 
an  involuntary,  creeping,  tremulous  sense  of  horror 
emerges  into  consciousness,  —  and  is  speedily  re- 
pressed. "This  feeling,"  he  whispers  to  himself, 
"is  altogether  unworthy  the  scientific  spirit  in  which 
I  am  now  to  be  educated  ;  it  needs  to  be  subdued. 
The  sight  of  this  inarticulate  agony,  this  prolonged 
anguish  is  not  presented  to  me  for  amusement.  I 
must  steel  myself  to  witness  it,  to  assist  in  it,  for  the 


I  o  INTRO  D  UCTION. 

sake  of  the  good  I  shall  be  helped  thereby  to  accom- 
plish, some  day,  for  suffering  humanity." 

Praiseworthy  sentiments,  these  are,  indeed.  Are 
they  founded  in  reality  ?  No.  The  student  who 
thus  conquers  "  squeamishness  "  will  not  see  one  fact 
thus  demonstrated  at  the  cost  of  pain  which  was  un- 
known to  science  before  ;  not  one  fact  which  he 
might  not  have  been  made  to  remember  without  this 
demonstrative  illustration  ;  not  one  fact — saddest  truth 
of  all — that  is  likely  to  be  of  the  slightest  practical 
service  to  him  or  to  her  in  the  multiplied  and  various 
duties  of  future  professional  life.  Why,  then,  are 
they  shown  ?  To  help  him  to  remember  his  lesson  ! 
Admit  the  value  to  the  student,  but  what  of  the  cost? 

In  one  of  the  great  cities  of  China,  I  was  shown, 
leaning  against  the  high  wall  of  the  execution  ground, 
a  rude,  wooden  frame-work  or  cross,  old,  hacked,  and 
smeared  with  recent  blood-stains.  It  was  used,  I  was 
told,  in  the  punishment  of  extreme  offenses  ;  the  crim- 
inal being  bound  thereto,  and  flayed  and  cut  in  every 
way  human  ingenuity  could  devise  for  inflicting  tor- 
ture before  giving  an  immediately  mortal  wound. 
Only  the  week  before,  such  an  execution  had  taken 
place  ;  the  victim  being  a  woman  who  had  poisoned 
her  husband.  A  young  and  enthusiastic  physician 
whom  I  met,  told  me  he  had  secured  the  privilege  of 
being  an  eye  witness  to  the  awful  tragedy,  that  he 
might  verify  a  theory  he  had  formed  on  the  influence 


INTRODUCTION.  1 1 

of  pain  ;  a  theory  perhaps  like  that  which  led  to  Man- 
tegazza's  crucifixion  of  pregnant  rabbits  with  dolori 
atrocissimi*  Science  here  caught  her  profit  from  the 
punishment  of  crime,  but  the  gain  would  have  been 
the  same  had  her  interest  alone  been  the  object. 
There  is  always  gain,  always  some  aid  to  memory  ; — 
but  what  of  the  cost  ? 

It  cannot  be  expected  that  any  Medical  College,  of 
its  own  accord  and  without  outside  pressure,  will  re- 
strict or  hamper  its  freedom  of  action.  As  a  con- 
dition of  prosperity  and  success  it  cannot  show  less 
than  is  exhibited  by  other  medical  schools  ;  it  must 
keep  abreast  of  "advanced  thought,"  and  do  and 
demonstrate  in  every  way  what  its  rivals  demon- 
strate and  do.  There  can  be  no  question  but  that 
there  is  to-day  a  strong  public  demand  for  continental 
methods  of  physiological  instruction.  Who  make  this 
demand  ?  You,  gentlemen,  students  of  medicine, 
and  they  who  follow  in  your  pathway.  This  year  it  is 
you  who  silently  request  this  aid  to  your  memory  of 
the  physiological  statements  of  your  text  books  ; 
another  year,  another  class  of  young  men  and  young 
women,  occupying  the  same  benches,  or  filling  the 
same  laboratory,  repeats  the  demand  for  the  same 
series  of  illustrations.  You,  perhaps,  will  have  gone 
forward  to  take  your  places  in  active  life,  to  assume 
the  real  burdens  of  the  medical  profession.     To  those 

*  See  Appendix,  page  83. 


1 2  INTRO  D  UCTION. 

succeeding  years  of  thought,  reflection  and  useful- 
ness, let  me  appeal,  respecting  the  absolute  necessity 
of  all  class  demonstrations  and  laboratory  work  in- 
volving pain.  Postpone  if  you  please,  the  ready 
decision  which,  fresh  from  your  class-room,  you  are 
perhaps  only  too  willing  to  give  me  to-day  ;  I  do  not 
wish  it.  But  some  time  in  the  future,  after  years  have 
gone  by,  remembering  all  you  have  seen  and  aided 
in  the  doing,  tell  us  if  you  can,  exactly  wherein  you 
received,  in  added  potency  for  helping  human  suf- 
ering  and  for  the  treatment  of  human  ills,  the  equiva- 
lent of  that  awful  expenditure  of  pain  which  you 
are  now  demanding,  and  which  by  unprotesting  ac- 
quiescence, you  are  to-day  helping  to  inflict. 

Boston,  Mass., 
March,  i88g. 


[From  Scribner's  Monthly,  July,  1880. ) 

DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 


The  question  of  vivisection  is  again  push- 
ing itself  to  the  front.  A  distinguished 
American  physiologist  has  lately  come  for- 
ward in  defense  of  the  French  experimenter, 
Magendie,  and,  parenthetically,  of  his  meth- 
ods of  investigation  in  the  study  of  vital 
phenomena.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Soci- 
ety for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals 
made  an  unsuccessful  attempt,  in  the  New 
York  Legislature  last  winter,  to  secure  the 
passage  of  a  law  which  would  entirely  abol- 
ish the  practice  as  now  in  vogue  in  our 
medical  schools,  or  cause  it   to   be  secretly 


1 6  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

carried  on,  in  defiance  of  legal  enactments. 
In  support  of  this  bill  it  was  claimed  that 
physiologists,  for  the  sake  of  "  demonstrating 
to  medical  students  certain  physiological 
phenomena  connected  with  the  functions  of 
life,  are  constantly  and  habitually  in  the 
practice  of  cutting  up  alive,  torturing  and 
tormenting  divers  of  the  unoffending  brute 
creation  to  illustrate  their  theories  and 
lectures,  but  without  any  practical  or  bene- 
ficial result  either  to  themselves  or  to  the  stu- 
dents, which  practice  is  demoralizing  to  both 
and  engenders  in  the  future  medical  practi- 
tioners a  want  of  humanity  and  sympathy  for 
physical  pain  and  suffering."  How  far  these 
statements  are  true  will  be  hereafter  discussed ; 
but  one  assertion  is  so  evidently  erroneous 
that  it  may  be  at  once  indicated.  No  experi- 
ment, however  atrocious,  cruel  and,  therefore, 
on  the  whole,  unjustifiable,  if  performed  to 
illustrate  some  scientific  point,  was  ever  with- 
out "any  beneficial  result."  The  benefit 
may  have  been  infinitesimal,  but  every  scien- 
tific fact  is  of  some  value.     To  assert  the 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  17 

contrary  is  to  weaken  one's  case  by  over- 
statement. 

Leaving  out  the  brute  creation,  there  are 
three  parties  interested  in  this  discussion. 
In  the  first  place,  there  are  the  professors 
and  teachers  of  physiology  in  the  medical 
colleges.  Naturally,  these  desire  no  inter- 
ference with  either  their  work  or  their 
methods.  They  claim  that  were  the  know- 
ledge acquired  by  experiments  upon  living 
organisms  swept  out  of  existence,  in  many 
respects  the  science  of  physiology  would  be 
little  more  than  guesswork  to-day.  The 
subject  of  vivisection,  they  declare,  is  one 
which  does  not  concern  the  general  public, 
but  belongs  exclusively  to  scientists  and  es- 
pecially to  physiologists.  That  the  present  cen- 
tury should  permit  sentimentalists  to  interfere 
with  scientific  investigations  is  preposterous. 

Behind  these  stand  the  majority  of  men 
belonging  to  the  medical  profession-  Hold- 
ing, as  they  do,  the  most  important  and  inti- 
mate relations  to  society,  it  is  manifestly 
desirable  that  they  should  enjoy  the  best 
^y  OF  Tl 


1 8  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

facilities  for  the  acquirement  of  knowledge 
necessary  to  their  art.  To  most,  the  question 
is  merely  one  of  professional  privilege  against 
sentiment,  and  they  cannot  hesitate  which 
side  to  prefer.  In  this,  as  in  other  professions 
or  trades,  the  feeling  of  esprit  de  corps  is  ex- 
ceedingly strong ;  and  no  class  of  men  likes 
interference  on  the  part  of  outsiders.  To 
most  physicians  it  is  wholly  a  scientific 
question.  It  is  a  matter,  they  think,  with 
which  the  public  has  no  concern  ;  if  society 
can  trust  to  the  profession  its  sick  and  dying, 
they  surely  can  leave  to  its  feeling  of  humanity 
a  few  worthless  brutes. 

The  opinion  of  the  general  public  is  there- 
fore, divided  and  confused.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  is  profoundly  desirous  to  make  > 
systematic  and  needless  cruelty  impossible ; 
yet,  on  the  other,  it  cannot  but  hesitate  to 
take  any  step  which  shall  hinder  medical  • 
education,  impede  scientific  discovery,  or  re- 
strict search  for  new  methods  of  treating 
disease.  What  are  the  sufferings  of  an  ani- 
mal, however  acute   or  prolonged,  compared 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  19 

with  the  gain  to  humanity  which  would  re- 
sult from  the  knowledge  thereby  acquired  of 
a  single  curative  agent?  Public  opinion 
hesitates.  A  leading  newspaper,  commenting 
on  the  introduction  of  the  Bergh  bill,  doubt- 
less expressed  the  sentiment  of  most  people 
when  it  deprecated  prevention  of  experiments 
"  by  which  original  investigators  seek  to  es- 
tablish or  verify  conclusions  which  may  be  of 
priceless  value  to  the  preservation  of  life  and 
health  among  human  beings." 

The  question  nevertheless  confronts  soci- 
ety,— and  in  such  shape,  too,  that  society 
cannot  escape,  even  if  it  would,  the  responsi- 
bility of  a  decision.  Either  by  action  or  in- 
action the  State  must  decide  whether  the 
practice  of  vivisection  shall  be  wholly  abolish- 
ed, as  desired  by  some ;  whether  it  shall  be 
restricted  by  law  within  certain  limits  and 
for  certain  definite  objects,  as  in  Great  Brit- 
ain ;  or  whether  we  are  to  continue  in  this 
country  to  follow  the  example  of  France  and 
Germany,  in  permitting  the  practice  of  phys- 
iological experimentation  to  any  extent  de- 


20  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

vised  or  desired  by  the  experimentalist  him- 
self. Any  information  tending  to  indicate 
which  of  these  courses  is  best  cannot  be  in- 
opportune. Having  witnessed  experiments 
by  some  of  the  most  distinguished  European 
physiologists,  such  as  Claude  Bernard  (the 
successor  of  Magendie),  Milne-Edwards  and 
Brown-Sequard  ;  and,  still  better  (or  worse, 
as  the  reader  may  think),  having  performed 
some  experiments  in  this  direction  for  pur- 
poses of  investigation  and  for  the  instruction 
of  others,  the  present  writer  believes  himself 
justified  in  holding  and  stating  a  pronounced 
opinion  on  this  subject,  even  if  it  be  to  some 
extent,  opposed  to  the  one  prevailing  in  the 
profession.  Suppose,  therefore,  we  review 
briefly  the  arguments  to  be  adduced  both  in 
favor  of  the  practice  and  against  it. 

Two  principal  arguments  may  be  advanced 
in  its  favor. 

i.  It  is  undeniable  that  to  the  practice  of 
vivisection  we  are  indebted  for  very  much  of 
our  present  knowledge  of  physiology.  This 
is  the  fortress  of  the  advocates  of  vivisection, 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  21 

and  a  certain  refuge  when  other  arguments 
are  of  no  avail. 

11.  As  a  means  of  teaching  physiological 
facts,  vivisection  is  unsurpassed.  No  teacher 
of  science  needs  to  be  told  the  vast  supe- 
riority of  demonstration  over  affirmation. 
Take  for  instance,  the  circulation  of  the 
blood.  The  student  who  displays  but  a  lan- 
guid interest  in  statements  of  fact,  or  even  in 
the  best  delineations  and  charts  obtainable, 
will  be  thoroughly  aroused  by  seeing  the  pro- 
cess actually  before  his  eyes.  A  week's  study 
upon  the  book  will  less  certainly  be  retained 
in  his  memory  than  a  single  view  of  the 
opened  thorax  of  a  frog  or  dog.  There  be- 
fore him  is  the  throbbing  heart;  he  sees  its 
relations  to  adjoining  structures,  and  marks, 
with  a  wonder  he  never  before  knew,  that 
mystery  of  life  by  which  the  heart,  even 
though  excised  from  the  body,  does  not  cease 
for  a  time  its  rhythmic  beat.  To  imagine, 
then,  that  teachers  of  physiology  find  mere 
amusement  in  these  operations  is  the  greatest 
of  ignorant  mistakes.     They  deem   it  desira- 


2  2  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

ble  that  certain  facts  be  accurately  fixed  in 
memory,  and  they  know  that  no  system  of 
mnemonics  equals  for  such  purpose  the  dem- 
onstration of  the  function  itself. 

Just  here,  however,  arises  a  very  important 
question.  Admitting  the  benefit  of  the  dem- 
onstration of  scientific  facts,  how  far  may  one 
justifiably  subject  an  animal  to  pain  for  the 
purpose  of  illustrating  a  point  already  known? 
It  is  merely  a  question  of  cost.  For  instance, 
it  is  an  undisputed  statement  in  physical 
science  that  the  diamond  is  nothing  more 
than  a  form  of  crystallized  carbon,  and,  like 
other  forms  of  carbon,  under  certain  con- 
ditions, may  be  made  to  burn.  Now  most  of 
us  are  entirely  willing  to  accept  this,  as  we 
do  the  majority  of  truths,  upon  the  testimony 
of  scientific  men,  without  making  demon- 
stration a  requisite  of  assent.  In  a  certain 
private  school,  however,  it  has  long  been  the 
custom  once  a  year,  to  burn  in  oxygen  a 
small  diamond,  worth  perhaps  $30,  so  as  ac- 
tually to  prove  to  the  pupils  the  assertion  of 
their  text-books.     The  experiment  is  a  bril- 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  2$ 

liant  one ;  no  one  can  doubt  its  entire  success. 
Nevertheless,  we  do  not  furnish  diamonds  to 
our  public  schools  for  this  purpose.  Exactly 
similar  to  this  is  one  aspect  of  vivisection — it 
is  a  question  of  cost.  Granting  all  the  ad- 
vantages which  follow  demonstration  of  cer- 
tain physiological  facts,  the  cost  is  pain — pain 
sometimes  amounting  to  prolonged  and  ex- 
cruciating torture.  Is  the  gain  worth  this  ? 
Let  me  mention  an  instance.  Not  long 
ago,  in  a  certain  medical  college  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  I  saw  what  Doctor  Sharpey, 
for  thirty  years  the  professor  of  physiology 
in  the  University  Medical  College,  London, 
once  characterized  by  antithesis  as  "  Magen- 
die's  infamous  experiment,"  it  having  been 
first  performed  by  that  eminent  physiologist. 
It  was  designed  to  prove  that  the  stomach, 
although  supplied  with  muscular  coats,  is 
during  the  act  of  vomiting  for  the  most  part 
passive  ;  and  that  expulsion  of  its  contents 
is  due  to  the  action  of  the  diaphragm  and  the 
larger  abdominal  muscles.  The  professor  to 
whom  I  refer  did  not  propose  to   have  even 


24  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

Magendie's  word  accepted  as  an  authority 
on  the  subject:  the  fact  should  be  demon- 
strated again.  So  an  incision  in  the  abdomen 
of  a  dog  was  made  ;  its  stomach  was  cut  out ; 
a  pig's  bladder  containing  colored  water  was 
inserted  in  its  place,  an  emetic  was  injected 
into  the  veins, — and  vomiting  ensued.  Long 
before  the  conclusion  of  the  experiment  the 
animal  became  conscious,  and  its  cries  of 
suffering  were  exceedingly  painful  to  hear. 
Now,  granting  that  this  experiment  impressed 
an  abstract  scientific  fact  upon  the  memories 
of  all  who  saw  it,  nevertheless  it  remains 
significantly  true  that  the  fact  thus  demon- 
strated had  no  conceivable  relation  to  the 
treatment  of  disease.  It  is  not  to-day  re- 
garded as  conclusive  of  the  theory  which, 
after  nearly  two  hundred  repetitions  of  his 
experiment,  was  doubtless  considered  by  Ma- 
gendie  as  established  beyond  question.  Doc- 
tor Sharpey,  a  strong  advocate  of  vivisection, 
by  the  way,  condemned  it  as  a  perfectly 
unjustifiable  experiment,  since  "besides  its 
atrocity,    it   was   really   purposeless."      Was 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  25 

this  repetition  of  the  experiment  which  I 
have  described  worth  its  cost  ?  Was  the  gain 
worth  the  pain  ? 

Let  me  instance  another  and  more  recent 
case.  Being  in  Paris  a  year  ago,  I  went  one 
morning  to  the  College  de  France,  to  hear 
Brown-Sequard,  the  most  eminent  experi- 
menter in  vivisection  now  living  — one  who, 
Doctor  Carpenter  tells  us,  has  probably  in- 
flicted more  animal  suffering  than  any  other 
man  in  his  time.  The  lecturer  stated  that 
injury  to  certain  nervous  centers  near  the 
base  of  the  brain  would  produce  peculiar  and 
curious  phenomena  in  the  animal  operated 
upon,  causing  it,  for  example,  to  keep  turning 
to  one  side  in  a  circular  manner,  instead  of 
walking  in  a  straightforward  direction.  A 
Guinea-pig  was  produced — a  little  creature, 
about  the  size  of  a  half-grown  kitten — and 
the  operation  was  effected,  accompanied  by  a 
series  of  piercing  little  squeaks.  As  foretold, 
the  creature  thus  injured  did  immediately 
perform  a  "  circular "  movement.  A  rabbit 
was  then  operated  upon  with  similar  results. 


26  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

Lastly,  an  unfortunate  poodle  was  introduced, 
its  muzzle  tied  with  stout  whip-cord,  wound 
round  and  round  so  tightly  that  it  must 
necessarily  have  caused  severe  pain.  It  was 
forced  to  walk  back  and  forth  on  the  long 
table,  during  which  it  cast  looks  on  every 
side,  as  though  seeking  a  possible  avenue  of 
escape.  Being  fastened  in  the  operating 
trough,  an  incision  was  made  to  the  bone, 
flaps  turned  back,  an  opening  made  in  the 
skull,  and  enlarged  by  breaking  away  some 
portions  with  forceps.  During  these  various 
processes  no  attempt  whatever  was  made  to 
cause  unconsciousness  by  means  of  anaesthet- 
ics, and  the  half-articulate,  half-smothered 
cries  of  the  creature  in  its  agony  were  terrible 
to  hear,  even  to  one  not  unaccustomed  to 
vivisections.  The  experiment  was  a  "  suc- 
cess " ;  the  animal  after  its  mutilation  did 
describe  certain  circular  movements.  But 
I  cannot  help  questioning  in  regard  to  these 
demonstrations,  did  they  pay  ?  This  experi- 
ment had  not  the  slightest  relation  whatever 
to  the  cure  of  disease.     More  than  this  :  it 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  2J 

teaches  us  little  or  nothing  in  physiology. 
The  most  eminent  physiologist  in  this  coun- 
try, Doctor  Austin  Flint,  Jr.,  admits  that  ex- 
periments of  this  kind  "  do  not  seem  to  have 
advanced  our  positive  knowledge  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  nerve  centers,"  and  that  similar 
experiments  "  have  been  very  indefinite  in 
their  results."  On  this  occasion,  therefore, 
three  animals  were  subjected  to  torture  to 
demonstrate  an  abstract  fact,  which  probably 
not  a  single  one  of  the  two  dozen  spectators 
would  have  hesitated  to  take  for  granted  on 
the  word  of  so  great  a  pathologist  as  Doctor 
Brown-Sequard.  Was  the  gain  worth  the 
cost  ? 

This,  then,  is  the  great  question  that  must 
eventually  be  decided  by  the  public.  Do 
humanity  and  science  here  indicate  diverging 
roads  ?  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  it  to  be 
an  undeniable  fact  that  the  highest  scientific 
and  medical  opinion  is  against  the  repetition 
of  painful  experiments  for  class  teaching.  In 
1875,  a  Royal  Commission  was  appointed  in 
Great   Britain   to  investigate  the  subject  of 


28  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

vivisection,  with  a  view  to  subsequent  legis- 
lation. The  interests  of  science  were  repre- 
sented by  the  appointment  of  Professor  Hux- 
ley as  a  member  of  this  commission.  Its 
meetings  continued  over  several  months,  and 
the  report  constitutes  a  large  volume  of 
valuable  testimony.  The  opinions  of  many 
of  these  witnesses  are  worthy  of  special  at- 
tention, from  the  eminent  position  to  the 
men  who  hold  them.  The  physician  to  the 
Queen,  Sir  Thomas  Watson,  with  whose 
"  Lectures  on  Physic  "  every  medical  practi- 
tioner in  this  country  is  familiar,  says  :  "  I 
hold  that  no  teacher  or  man  of  science  who 
by  his  own  previous  experiments,  *  *  * 
has  thoroughly  satisfied  himself  of  the  so- 
lution of  any  physiological  problem,  is  justi- 
fied in  repeating  the  experiments,  however 
mercifully,  to  appease  the  natural  curiosity 
of  a  class  of  students  or  of  scientific  friends." 
Sir  George  Burroughs,  President  of  the  Royal 
College  of  Physicians,  says :  "  I  do  not  think 
that  an  experiment  should  be  repeated  over 
and  over  again    in   our  medical  schools    to 


*% 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  29 

illustrate  what  is  already  established.''  *  Sir 
James  Paget,  Surgeon  Extraordinary  to  the 
Queen,  said  before  the  commission  that  "  ex- 
periments for  the  purpose  of  repeating  any- 
thing already  ascertained  ought  never  to  be 
shown  to  classes."  [363.]  Sir  William  Fer- 
gusson,  F.  R.  S.,  also  Surgeon  to  her  Majesty, 
asserted  that  "  sufferings  incidental  to  such 
operations  are  protracted  in  a  very  shocking 
manner";  that  of  such  experiments  there  is 
"  useless  repetition,"  and  that  "  when  once  a 
fact  which  involves  cruelty  to  animals  has 
been  fairly  recognized  and  accepted,  there  is 
no  necessity  for  a  continued  repetition.', 
[1019.]  Even  physiologists — some  of  them 
practical  experimenters  in  vivisection — join 
in  condemning  these  class  demonstrations. 
Dr.  William  Sharpey,  before  referred  to  as  a 
teacher  of  physiology  for  over  thirty  years  in 
University    College,  says  :  "  Once  such  facts 


*  ' '  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Practice  of  Sub- 
jecting Live  Animals  to  Experiments  for  Scientific  Purposes." 
Question  No,  175.  Reference  to  this  volume  will  hereafter  be 
made  in  this  article  by  inserting  in  brackets,  immediately  after  the 
authority  quoted,  the  number  of  the  question  in  this  report  from 
which  the  extract  is  made. 


3o  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

fully  established,  I  do  not  think  it  justi- 
fiable to  repeat  experiments  causing  pain 
to  animals."  [405.]  Dr.  Rolleston,  Profes- 
sor of  Physiology  at  Oxford,  said  that  "  for 
class  demonstrations  limitations  should  un- 
doubtedly be  imposed,  and  those  limitations 
should  render  illegal  painful  experiments  be- 
fore classes'"  [129 1.]  Charles  Darwin,  the 
greatest  of  living  naturalists,  stated  that  he 
had  never  either  directly  or  indirectly  experi- 
mented on  animals,  and  that  he  regarded 
a  painful  experiment  without  anaesthetics 
which  might  be  made  w7ith  anaesthetics  as  de- 
serving "  detestation  and  abhorrence."  [4672.] 
And  finally  the  report  of  this  commission,  to 
which  is  attached  the  name  of  Professor 
Huxley,  says  :  "  With  respect  to  medical 
schools,  we  accept  the  resolution  of  the  Brit- 
ish Association  in  i87i,that  experimentation 
without  the  use  of  anaesthetics  is  not  a  fitting 
exhibition  for  teaching  purposes." 

It  must  be  noted  that  hardly  any  of  these 
opinions  touch  the  question  of  vivisection  so 
far  as  it  is  done  without  the  infliction  of  pain, 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PA  Y?  3 1 

nor  object  to  it  as  a  method  of  original  re- 
search ;  they  relate  simply  to  the  practice  of 
repeating  painful  experiments  for  purposes 
of  physiological  teaching.  We  cannot  dis- 
miss them  as  "  sentimental  "  or  unimportant. 
If  painful  experiments  are  necessary  for  the 
education  of  the  young  physician,  how  hap- 
pens it  that  Watson  and  Burroughs  are  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  ?  If  indispensable  to  the 
proper  training  of  the  surgeon,  why  are  they 
condemned  by  Fergusson  and  Paget  ?  If 
requisite  even  to  physiology,  why  denounced 
by  the  physiologists  of  Oxford  and  London  ? 
If  necessary  to  science,  why  viewed  "  with  ab- 
horrence "  by  the  greatest  of  modern  scientists  ? 
Another  objection  to  vivisection,  when 
practiced  as  at  present  without  supervision 
or  control,  is  the  undeniable  fact  that  habit- 
ual familiarity  with  the  infliction  of  pain  upon 
animals  has  a  decided  tendency  to  engender 
a  sort  of  careless  indifference  regarding  suffer- 
ing. "  Vivisection,"  says  Professor  Rolleston 
of  Oxford,  "  is  very  liable  to  abuse.  *  *  * 
It  is  specially  liable  to  tempt  a  man  into  cer- 


32  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

tain  carelessness  ;  the  passive  impressions 
produced  by  the  sight  of  suffering  growing 
weaker,  while  the  habit  and  pleasure  of  ex- 
perimenting grows  stronger  by  repetition." 
[1287.]  Says  Doctor  Elliotson :  "I  cannot 
refrain  from  expressing  my  horror  at  the 
amount  of  torture  which  Doctor  Brachet  in- 
flicted. /  hardly  think  knowledge  is  worth 
having  at  such  a  purchased  *  A  very  strik- 
ing example  of  this  tendency  was  brought  out 
in  the  testimony  of  a  witness  before  the 
Royal  Commission, — Doctor  Klein,  a  prac- 
tical physiologist.  He  admitted  frankly  that 
as  an  investigator  he  held  as  entirely  indiffer- 
ent the  sufferings  of  animals  subjected  to  his 
experiments  ,  that,  except  for  teaching  pur- 
poses, he  never  used  anaesthetics  unless  neces- 
sary for  his  own  convenience.  Some  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  could  hardly  realize 
the  possibility  of  such  a  confession. 

Do  you  mean  you  have  no  regard  at  all 
to  the  sufferings  of  the  lower  animals  ?  " 

*  "Human  Physiology,"  by  John  Elliotson,  M.  D.,  F.  R.   S. 
(page  448). 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  33 

"  No  regard  at  all"  was  the  strange  reply ; 
and,  after  a  little  further  questioning,  the  wit- 
ness explained  : 

"  I  think  that,  with  regard  to  an  experi- 
menter— a  man  who  conducts  special  re- 
search and  performs  an  experiment — he  has 
no  time,  so  to  speak,  for  thinking  what  the 
animal  will  feel  or  suffer  !  " 

Of  Magendie's  cruel  disposition  there 
seems  only  too  abundant  evidence.  Says 
Doctor  Elliotson :  "  Dr.  Magendie,  in  one 
of  his  barbarous  experiments,  which  I  am 
ashamed  to  say  I  witnessed,  began  by  coolly 
cutting  out  a  large  round  piece  from  the 
back  of  a  beautiful  little  puppy,  as  he  would 
from  an  apple  dumpling ! "  "  It  is  not  to  be 
doubted  that  inhumanity  may  be  found  in 
persons  of  very  high  position  as  physiolo- 
gists. We  have  seen  that  it  was  so  in  Magen- 
die." This  is  the  language  of  the  report  on 
vivisection,  to  which  is  attached  the  name  of 
Professor  Huxley. 

But  the  fact  which,  in  my  own  mind,  con- 
stitutes   by   far  the   strongest   objection  to 


34  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

unrestrained  experiments  in  pain,  is  their 
questionable  utility  as  regards  therapeutics. 
Probably  most  readers  are  aware  that  physi- 
ology is  that  science  which  treats  of  the  vari- 
ous functions  of  life,  such  as  digestion,  res- 
piration and  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  while 
therapeutics  is  that  department  of  medicine 
which  relates  to  the  discovery  and  application 
of  remedies  for  disease.  Now  I  venture  to 
assert  that,  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, infliction  of  intense  torture  upon  un- 
known myriads  of  sentient,  living  creatures, 
has  not  resulted  in  the  discovery  of  a  single 
remedy  of  acknowledged  and  generally  accepted 
value  in  the  cure  of  disease.  This  is  not  known 
to  the  general  public,  but  it  is  a  fact  essential 
to  any  just  decision  regarding  the  expediency 
of  unrestrained  liberty  of  vivisection.  It  is 
by  no  means  intended  to  deny  the  value  to 
therapeutics  of  well-known  physiological  facts 
acquired  thus  in  the  past — such,  for  instance, 
as  the  more  complete  knowledge  we  possess 
regarding  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  or  the 
distinction  between  motor  and  sensory  nerves, 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  35 

nor  can  original  investigation  be  pronounced 
absolutely  valueless  as  respects  remote  possi- 
bility of  future  gain.  /What  the  public  has  a 
right  to  ask  of  those  who  would  indefinitely 
prolong  these  experiments  without  State 
supervision  or  control  is,  "  What  good  have 
your  painful  experiments  accomplished  during 
the  past  thirty  years — not  in  ascertaining  facts 
in  physiology  or  causes  of  rare  or  incurable 
complaints,  but  in  the  discovery  of  improved 
methods  for  ameliorating  human  suffering, 
and  for  the  cure  of  disease?  "/  If  pain  could 
be  estimated  in  money,  no  corporation  ever 
existed  which  would  be  satisfied  with  such 
waste  of  capital  in  experiments  so  futile ;  no 
mining  company  would  permit  a  quarter- 
century  of  "  prospecting "  in  such  barren 
regions.  The  usual  answer  to  this  inquiry  is 
to  bring  forward  facts  in  physiology  thus 
acquired  in  the  past,  in  place  of  facts  in  thera- 
peutics. Thus,  in  a  recent  article  on  Magen- 
die  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  we  are 
furnished  with  a  long  list  of  such  additions 
to   our  knowledge.     It  may  be  questioned, 


36  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

however,  whether  the  writer  is  quite  scientifi- 
cally accurate  in  asserting  that,  were  our  past 
experience  in  vivisection  abolished,  "  it  would 
blot  out  #//that  we  know  to-day  in  regard  to 
the  circulation  of  the  blood,  *  *  the  growth 
and  regeneration  of  bone,  *  *  *  the  origin 
of  many  parasitic  diseases,  *  *  *  the  com- 
municability  of  certain  contagious  and  infec- 
tious diseases,  and,  to  make  the  list  complete, 
it  would  be  requisite  *  *  to  take  a  wide 
range  in  addition  through  the  domains  of  path- 
ology and  therapeutics"  Surely  somewhat 
about  these  subjects  has  been  acquired  other- 
wise than  by  experiments  upon  animals  ? 
For  example,  an  inquiring  critic  might  wish 
to  know  a  few  of  the  "  many  parasitic  dis- 
eases "  thus  discovered ;  or  what  contagious 
and  infectious  diseases,  whose  communica- 
bility  was  previously  unknown,  have  had  this 
quality  demonstrated  solely  by  experiments 
on  animals  ?  And  what,  too,  prevented  that 
*  wide  range  into  therapeutics  "  necessary  to 
make  complete  the  list  of  benefits  due  to 
vivisection  ?     In  urging  the  utility  of  a  prac- 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  37 

tice  so  fraught  with  danger,  the  utmost  pre- 
caution against  the  slightest  error  of  over- 
statement becomes  an  imperative  duty.  Even 
so  distinguished  a  scientist  as  Sir  John  Lub- 
bock once  rashly  asserted  in  Parliament  that, 
"  without  experiments  on  living  animals,  we 
should  never  have  had  the  use  of  ether " ! 
Nearly  every  American  school-boy  knows 
that  the  contrary  is  true — that  the  use  of 
ether  as  an  anaesthetic — the  grandest  discov- 
ery of  modern  times — had  no  origin  in  the 
torture  of  animals. 

I  confess  that,  until  very  recently,  I  shared 
the  common  impression  regarding  the  utility 
of  vivisection  in  therapeutics.  It  is  a  belief 
still  widely  prevalent  in  the  medical  profes- 
sion. Nevertheless,  is  it  not  a  mistake  ?  The 
therapeutical  results  of  nearly  half  a  century 
of  painful  experiments — we  seek  them  in 
vain.  Do  we  ask  surgery  ?  Sir  William  Fer- 
guson, surgeon  to  the  Queen,  tells  us  :  "  In 
surgery  I  am  not  aware  of  any  of  these  ex- 
periments on  the  lower  animals  having  led  to 
the  mitigation  of  pain  or  to  improvement  as 


38  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

regards  surgical  details."  [1049.]  Have 
antidotes  to  poisons  been  discovered  thereby  ? 
Says  Doctor  Taylor,  lecturer  on  Toxicology 
for  nearly  half  a  century  in  the  chief  London 
Medical  School  (a  writer  whose  work  on  Poi- 
sons is  a  recognized  authority) :  "  I  do  not 
know  that  we  have  as  yet  learned  anything, 
so  far  as  treatment  is  concerned,  from  our 
experiments  with  them  (i.  e,  poisons)  on  ani- 
mals." [1204.]  Doctor  Anthony,  speaking 
of  Magendie's  experiments,  says :  "  I  never 
gained  one  single  fact  by  seeing  these  cruel 
experiments  in  Paris.  /  know  nothing  more 
from  them  than  I  could  have  read."  [2450.] 
Even  physiologists  admit  the  paucity  of  thera- 
peutic results.  Doctor  Sharpey  says :  "  I 
should  lay  less  stress  on  the  direct  application 
of  the  results  of  vivisection  to  improvement  in 
the  art  of  healing,  than  upon  the  value  of 
these  experiments  in  the  promotion  of  phys- 
iology." [394.]  The  Oxford  professor  of 
Physiology  admitted  that  Etiology,  the  science 
which  treats  of  the  causes  of  disease,  had,  by 
these  experiments,   been    the  gainer,   rather 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  39 

than  therapeutics.  [1302.]  "  Experiments  on 
animals,"  says  Doctor  Thorowgood,  "  already- 
extensive  and  numerous,  cannot  be  said  to 
have  advanced  therapeutics  much."*  Sir 
William  Gull,  M.  D.,  was  questioned  before 
the  commission  whether  he  could  enumerate 
any  therapeutic  remedies  which  have  been 
discovered  by  vivisection,  and  he  replied  with 
fervor :  "  The  cases  bristle  around  us  every- 
where !  "  Yet,  excepting  Hall's  experiments 
on  the  nervous  system,  he  could  enumerate 
only  various  forms  of  disease,  our  knowledge 
of  which  is  due  to  Harvey's  discovery,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago !  The  question 
was  pushed  closer,  and  so  brought  to  the 
necessity  of  a  definite  reply,  he  answered  : 
"  I  do  not  say  at  present  our  therapeutics  are 
much,  but  there  are  lines  of  experiment 
which  seem  to  promise  great  help  in  thera- 
peutics." [5529.]  The  results  of  two  centuries 
of  experiments,  so  far  as  therapeutics  are 
concerned,  reduced  to  a  seeming  promise ! 
On  two  points,  then,  the  evidence  of  the 

*  "  Medical  Times  and  Gazette,"  October  5,  1872. 


4o  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

highest  scientific  authorities  in  Great  Britain 
seems  conclusive — first,  that  experiments 
upon  living  animals  conduce  chiefly  to  the 
benefit  of  the  science  of  physiology,  and  little, 
if  at  all,  at  the  present  day,  to  the  treatment 
of  disease  or  the  amelioration  of  human  suf- 
fering ;  and,  secondly,  that  repetition  of  pain- 
ful experiments  for  class-teaching  in  medical 
schools  is  both  unnecessary  and  unjustifiable. 
Do  these  conclusions  affect  the  practice  of 
vivisection  in  this  country  ?  Is  it  true  that 
experiments  are  habitually  performed  in  some 
of  our  medical  schools,  often  causing  extreme 
pain,  to  illustrate  well-known  and  accepted 
facts — experiments  which  English  physiolo- 
gists pronounce  "  infamous  "  and  "  atrocious," 
which  English  physicians  and  surgeons  stig- 
matize as  purposeless  cruelty  and  unjustifia- 
ble— which  even  Huxley  regards  as  unfit- 
ting for  teaching  purposes,  and  Darwin  de- 
nounces as  worthy  of  detestation  and  abhor- 
rence ?  I  confess  I  see  no  occasion  for 
any  over-delicate  reticence  in  this  matter. 
Science    needs    no   secrecy   either  for   her 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  41 

methods  or  results ;  her  function  is  to  re- 
veal, not  to  hide,  facts.  The  reply  to  these 
questions  must  be  in  the  affirmative.  In 
this  country  our  physiologists  are  rather  fol- 
lowers of  Magendie  and  Bernard,  after  the 
methods  in  vogue  at  Paris  and  Leipsic,  than 
governed  by  the  cautious  and  sensitive 
conservatism  in  this  respect  which  generally 
characterizes  the  physiological  teaching  of 
London  and  Oxford.  In  making  this  state- 
ment, no  criticism  is  intended  on  the  mo- 
tives of  those  responsible  for  ingrafting  con- 
tinental methods  upon  our  medical  schools. 
If  any  opprobrium  shall  be  inferred  for  the 
past  performance  of  experiments  herein  con- 
demned, the  present  writer  asks  a  share  in  it. 
It  is  the  future  that  we  hope  to  change.  Now, 
what  are  the  facts  ?  A  recent  contributor  to 
the  "  International  Review,"  referring  to  Mr. 
Bergh,  says  that  "  he  assails  physiological  ex- 
periments with  the  same  blind  extravagance 
of  denunciation  as  if  they  were  still  performed 
without  anaesthetics,  as  in  the  time  of  Magen- 
die."    In  the  interests  of  scientific,  accuracy 


42  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

one  would  wish  more  care  had  been  given  to 
the  construction  of  this  sentence,  for  it  im- 
plies that  experiments  are  not  now  performed 
except  with  anaesthetics — a  meaning  its  au- 
thor never  could  have  intended  to  convey. 
Every  medical  student  in  New  York  knows 
that  experiments  involving  pain  are  repeated- 
ly performed  to  illustrate  teaching.  It  is  no 
secret ;  one  need  not  go  beyond  the  frank 
admissions  of  our  later  text-books  on  physi- 
ology for  abundant  proof,  not  only  of  this,  but 
of  the  extent  to  which  experimentation  is 
now  carried  in  this  country.  "  We  have  long 
been  in  the  habit,  in  class  demonstrations,  of 
removing  the  optic  lobe  on  one  side  from  a 
pigeon,"  says  Professor  Flint,  of  Bellevue 
Hospital  Medical  College,  in  his  excellent 
work  on  Physiology.*  "  The  experiment  of 
dividing  the  sympathetic  in  the  neck,  es- 
pecially in  rabbits,  is  so  easily  performed  that 
the  phenomena  observed  by  Bernard  and 
Brown-Sequard  have  been  repeatedly  verified. 

*  A  Text-book  of  Human  Physiology,  designed  for  the  use  of 
Practitioners  and  Students  of  Medicine,  by  Austin  Flint,  Jr.,  M.  D. 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.     New  York  :  1876  (page  722). 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  43 

We  have  often  done  this  in  class  demonstra- 
tions!' *  "  The  cerebral  lobes  were  removed 
from  a  young  pigeon  in  the  usual  way,  an 
operation  *  *  which  we  practice  yearly  as 
a  class  demonstration!"  t  Referring  to  the 
removal  of  the  cerebellum,  the  same  authority 
states :  "  Our  own  experiments,  which  have 
been  very  numerous  during  the  last  fifteen 
years,  are  simply  repetitions  of  those  of  Flour- 
ens,  and  the  results  have  been  the  same  without 
exception!'  %  We  have  frequently  removed  both 
kidneys  from  dogs,  and  when  the  operation  is 
carefully  performed  the  animals  live  for  from 
three  to  five  days.  *  *  Death  always  takes 
place  with  symptoms  of  blood  poisoning."§ 
In  the  same  work  we  are  given  precise  details 
for  making  a  pancreatic  fistula,  after  the 
method  of  Claude  Bernard — "one  we  have 
repeatedly  employed  with  success."  "  In  per- 
forming the  above  experiment  it  is  generally 
better  not  to  employ  an  anaesthetic,"  ||  but 
ether  is  sometimes  used.     In  the  same  work 


*  Page  738.  f  Page  585.  |  Page  710. 

§  Page  403.  ||  Pages  269-70. 


44  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

is  given  a  picture  of  a  dog,  muzzled  and  with 
a  biliary  fistula,  as  it  appeared  the  fourteenth 
day  after  the  operation,  which,  with  details  of 
the  experiment,  is  quite  suggestive.  *  Bernard 
was  the  first  to  succeed  in  following  the 
spinal  accessory  nerve  back  to  the  jugular 
foramen,  seizing  it  here  with  a  strong  pair  of 
forceps  and  drawing  it  out  by  the  roots.  This 
experiment  is  practiced  in  our  own  country. 
"  We  have  found  this  result  (loss  of  voice)  to 
follow  in  the  cat  after  the  spinal  accessory 
nerves  have  been  torn  out  by  the  roots,"  says 
Professor  John  C.  Dal  ton,  in  his  Treatise  on 
Human  Physiology,  f  "  This  operation  is 
difficult,"  writes  Professor  Flint,  "  but  we  have 
several  times  performed  it  with  entire  suc- 
cess ;  "  and  his  assistant  at  Bellevue  Medi- 
cal College  has  succeeded  "  in  extirpating 
these  nerves  for  class  demonstrations."^  In 
withdrawal  of  blood  from  the  hepatic  veins  of 
a  dog,  "avoiding  the  administration  of  an 
anaesthetic  "  is  one  of  the  steps  recommend- 
ed. §     The  curious  experiment  of  Bernard, 

*Page  282.        |  Page  489.       %  Page  629.        §  Page  463. 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  45 

in  which  artificial  diabetes  is  produced  by 
irritating  the  floor  of  the  fourth  ventricle  of 
the  brain,  is  carefully  described,  and  illustra- 
tions afforded  both  of  the  instrument  and  the 
animal  undergoing  the  operation.  The  in- 
experienced experimenter  is  here  taught  to 
hold  the  head  of  the  rabbit  "  firmly  in  the  left 
hand,"  and  to  bore  through  its  skull  "  by  a 
few  lateral  movements  of  the  instrument.', 
It  is  not  a  difficult  operation ;  it  is  one  which 
the  author  has  "  often  repeated."  He  tell  us 
"  it  is  not  desirable  to  administer  an  anczs- 
thetic"  as  it  would  prevent  success ;  and  a 
little  further  we  are  told  that  "we  should 
avoid  the  administration  of  anaesthetics  in  all 
accurate  experiments  on  the  glycogenic  func- 
tion." *  It  is  true  the  pleasing  assurance  is 
given  that  "  this  experiment  is  almost  pain- 
less " ;  but  on  this  point,  could  the  rabbit 
speak  during  the  operation,  its  opinion  might 
not  accord  with  that  of  the  physiologist. 

There  is  one  experiment  in  regard  to  which 
the  severe  characterization  of  English  scien- 

*  Pages  470-71. 


46  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

tists  is  especially  applicable,  from  the  pain 
necessarily  attending  it.  Numerous  investi- 
gators have  long  established  the  fact  that  the 
great  sensory  nerve  of  the  head  and  face  is 
endowed  with  an  exquisite  degree  of  sensi- 
bility. More  than  half  a  century  ago,  both 
Magendie  and  Sir  Charles  Bell  pointed  out 
that  merely  exposing  and  touching  this  fifth 
nerve  gave  signs  of  most  acute  pain.  "  All 
who  have  divided  this  root  in  living  animals 
must  have  recognized,  not  only  that  it  is  sen- 
sitive, but  that  its  sensibility  is  far  more  acute 
than  that  of  any  other  nervous  trunk  in  the 
body."  *  "  The  fifth  pair,"  says  Professor 
John  C.  Dalton,  "  is  the  most  acutely  sensi- 
tive nerve  in  the  whole  body.  Its  irritation 
by  mechanical  means  always  causes  intense 
pain,  and  even  though  the  animal  be  nearly 
unconscious  from  the  influence  of  ether,  any 
severe  injury  to  its  large  root  is  almost  invar- 
iably followed  by  cries."  t  Testimony  on 
this   point    is    uniform    and    abundant.       If 


*  Flint :  "  Text  Book  on  Human  Physiology"  (page  641). 
f  Dalton's  "  Human  Physiology  "  (page  466) 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  47 

science  speaks  anywhere  with  assurance,  it  is 
in  regard  to  the  properties  of  this  nerve.  Yet 
every  year  the  experiment  is  repeated  before 
medical  classes,  simply  to  demonstrate  ac- 
cepted facts.  "  This  is  an  operation,"  says 
Professor  Flint,  referring  to  the  division  of 
this  nerve,  "  that  we  have  frequently  per- 
formed with  success."  He  adds  that  "  it  is 
difficult  from  the  fact  that  one  is  working  in 
the  dark,  and  it  requires  a  certain  amount  of 
dexterity,  to  be  acquired  only  by  practice." 
Minute  directions  are  therefore  laid  down  for 
the  operative  procedure,  and  illustrations 
given  both  of  the  instrument  to  be  used,  and 
of  the  head  of  a  rabbit  with  the  blade  of  the 
instrument  in  its  cranial  cavity.*  Holding 
the  head  of  our  rabbit  firmly  in  the  left  hand, 
we  are  directed  to  penetrate  the  cranium  in  a 
particular  manner.  "  Soon  the  operator  feels 
at  a  certain  depth  that  the  bony  resistance 
ceases  ;  he  is  then  on  the  fifth  pair,  and  the 
cries  of  the  animal  give  evidence  that  the 
nerve   is   pressed    upon."       This   is    one   of 

*  Flint  (pages  639-40). 


48  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

Magendie's  celebrated  experiments ;  perhaps 
the  reader  fancies  that  in  its  modern  repeti- 
tions the  animal  suffers  nothing,  being  ren- 
dered insensible  by  anaethetics  ?  '  //  is  much 
more  satisfactory  to  divide  the  nerve  without 
etherizing  the  animal,  as  the  evidence  of  pain 
is  an  important  guide  in  this  delicate  opera- 
tion"" Anaesthetics,  however,  are  sometimes 
used,  but  not  so  as  wholly  to  overcome  the 
pain. 

Testimony  of  individuals,  indicating  the 
extent  to  which  vivisection  is  at  present  prac- 
ticed in  this  country  might  be  given  ;  but  it 
seems  better  to  submit  proof  within  the  reach 
of  every  reader,  and  the  accuracy  of  which  is 
beyond  cavil.  No  legal  restrictions  whatever 
exist,  preventing  the  performance  of  any  ex- 
periment desired.  Indeed,  I  think  it  may 
safely  be  asserted  that,  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  in  a  single  medical  school,  more  pain 
is  inflicted  upon  living  animals  as  a  means  of 
teaching  well-known  facts,  than  is  permitted 
to  be  done  for  the  same  purpose  in  all  the 
medical  schools  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 


DOES  VIVISECTION-  PAY?  49 

And  cui  bono  ?  "  I  can  truly  say,"  writes  a 
physician  who  has  seen  all  these  experiments, 
"  that  not  only  have  I  never  seen  any  results 
at  all  commensurate  with  the  suffering  in- 
flicted, but  I  cannot  recall  a  single  experi- 
ment which,  in  the  slightest  degree,  has  in- 
creased my  ability  to  relieve  pain,  or  in  any 
way  fitted  me  to  cope  better  with  disease." 

In  respect  to  this  practice,  therefore,  evi- 
dence abounds  indicating  the  necessity  for 
that  State  supervision  which  obtains  in  Great 
Britain.  We  cannot  abolish  it  any  more  than 
we  can  repress  dissection  ;  to  attempt  it  would 
be  equally  unwise.  Within  certain  limita- 
tions, dictated  both  by  a  regard  for  the  in- 
terest of  science  and  by  that  sympathy  for 
everything  that  lives  and  suffers  which  is  the 
highest  attribute  of  humanity,  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  practice  of  vivisection  should  be 
allowed.     What  are  these  restrictions  ? 

The  following  conclusions  are  suggested 
as  a  basis  for  future  legislation: 

/.  Any  experiment  or  operation  whatever 
upon  a  living  animal^  during  which  by  recog- 


5o  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

nized  ancesthetics  it  is  made  completely  insen- 
sible to  pain,  should  be  permitted. 

This  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  taking 
of  life.  Should  a  surgeon,  for  example,  de- 
sire to  cause  a  fracture  or  tie  an  artery,  and 
then  permit  the  animal  to  recover  so  as  to 
note  subsequent  effects,  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  privilege  should  be  refused.  The 
discomfort  following  such  an  operation  would 
be  inconsiderable.  This  permission  should 
not  extend  to  experiments  purely  physiologi- 
cal and  having  no  definite  relation  to  surgery  ; 
nor  to  mutilation  from  which  recovery  is  im- 
possible, and  prolonged  pain  certain  as  a  se- 
quence. 

77.  Any  experiment  performed  thus,  under 
complete  anesthesia,  though  involving  any  de- 
gree of  mutilation,  if  concluded  by  the  extinc- 
tion of  life  before  consciousness  is  regained 
should  also  be  permitted. 

To  object  to  killing  animals  for  scientific 
purposes  while  we  continue  to  demand  their 
sacrifice  for  food,  is  to  seek  for  the  appetite  a 
privilege  we  refuse  the  mind.     It  is  equally 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  51 

absurd  to  object  to  vivisection  because  it  dis- 
sects, or  "  cuts  up."  If  no  pain  be  felt,  why- 
is  it  worse  to  cut  up  a  dog,  than  a  sheep  or 
an  ox?  Such  experiments  as  the  foregoing 
might  be  permitted  to  any  extent  desired  in 
our  medical  schools. 

Far  more  difficult  is  the  question  of  painful 
experimentation.  Unfortunately,  it  so  hap- 
pens that  the  most  attractive  original  investi- 
gations are  largely  upon  the  nervous  system, 
involving  the  consciousness  of  pain  as  a  re- 
quisite to  success.  Toward  this  class  of  ex- 
periments the  State  should  act  with  caution 
and  firmness.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  fol- 
lowing restrictions  are  only  just. 

Ill  In  view  of  the  great  cost  in  suffering, 
as  compared  with  the  slight  profit  gained  by 
the  student,  the  repetition,  for  purposes  of  class 
instruction  of  any  experiment  involving  pain 
to  a  vertebrate  animal  should  be  forbidden  by 
law, 

IV,  In  view  of  the  slight  gain  to  practical 
medicine  resulting  from  innumerable  past  ex- 
periments of  this  kind,  a  painful  experiment 


52  DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY? 

upon  a  living  vertebrate  animal  should  be  per- 
mitted  solely  for  purposes  of  original  investiga- 
tion, and  then  only  under  the  most  rigid  sur- 
veillance, arid  preceded  by  the  strictest  precau- 
tions. For  every  experiment  of  this  kind  the 
physiologist  should  be  required  to  obtain  spe- 
cial permission  from  a  State  board,  specifying 
on  application  (i)  the  object  of  the  proposed 
investigation,  (2)  the  nature  and  method  of 
the  operation,  (3)  the  species  of  animal  to  be 
sacrificed,  and  (4)  the  shortest  period  during 
which  pain  will  probably  be  felt.  An  officer 
of  the  State  should  be  given  an  opportunity 
to  be  present ;  and  a  report  made,  both  of  the 
length  of  time  occupied,  and  the  knowledge, 
if  any,  gained  thereby.  If  these  restrictions 
are  made  obligatory  by  statute,  and  their  vio- 
lation made  punishable  by  a  heavy  fine,  such 
experiments  will  be  generally  performed  only 
when  absolutely  necessary  for  purposes  of 
scientific  research. 

In  few  matters  is  there  greater  necessity 
for  careful  discrimination  than  in  everything 
pertaining  to  this  subject.     The  attempt  has 


DOES  VIVISECTION  PAY?  53 

been  made  in  this  paper  to  indicate  how  far 
the  State — leaning  to  mercy's  side — may- 
sanction  a  practice  often  so  necessary  and 
useful,  always  so  dangerous  in  its  tendencies. 
That  is  a  worthy  ideal  of  conduct  which  seeks 

"Never  to  blend  our  pleasure  or  our  pride 
With  sorrow  of  the  meanest  thing    that  feels." 

Is  not  this  a  sentiment  in  which  even  science 
may  fitly  share  ?  Are  we  justified  in  neglecting 
the  evidence  she  offers,  purchased  in  the  past 
at  such  immeasurable  agonies,  and  in  demand- 
ing that  year  after  year  new  victims  shall  be 
subjected  to  torture,  only  to  demonstrate  what 
none  of  us  doubt  ?  That  is  the  chief  question. 
For,  if  all  compromise  be  persistently  rejected 
by  physiologists,  there  is  danger  that  some 
day,  impelled  by  the  advancing  growth  of 
humane  sentiment,  society  may  confound  in 
one  common  condemnation  all  experiments 
of  this  nature,  and  make  the  whole  practice 
impossible,  except  in  secret  and  as  a  crime. 


[From  Lippincott's  Magazine,  August,  1884.] 

VIVISECTION.     . 


Omitting  entirely  any  consideration  of  the 
ethics  of  vivisection,  the  only  points  to  which 
in  the  present  article  the  attention  of  the 
reader  is  invited  are  those  in  which  scientific 
inquirers  may  be  supposed  to  have  a  common 
interest. 

I.  One  danger  to  which  scientific  truth 
seems  to  be  exposed  is  a  peculiar  tendency 
to  underestimate  the  numberless  uncertain- 
ties and  contradictions  created  by  experimen- 
tation upon  living  beings.  Judging  from  the 
enthusiasm  of  its  advocates,  one  would  think 
that  by  this  method  of  interrogating  nature 
all  fallacies  can  be  detected,  all  doubts  deter- 
mined.    But,  on   the  contrary,  the  result  of 


5  6  VIVISECTION. 

experimentation,  in  many  directions,  is  to 
plunge  the  observer  into  the  abyss  of  uncer- 
tainty. Take,  for  example,  one  of  the  simplest 
and  yet  most  important  questions  possible, 
— the  degree  of  sensibility  in  the  lower  ani- 
mals. Has  an  infinite  number  of  experiments 
enabled  physiologists  to  determine  for  us  the 
mere  question  of  pain  ?  Suppose  an  amateur 
experimenter  in  London,  desirous  of  perform- 
ing some  severe  operations  upon  frogs,  to 
hesitate  because  of  the  extreme  painfulness 
of  his  methods,  what  replies  would  he  be  likely 
to  obtain  from  the  highest  scientific  authori- 
ties of  England  as  to  the  sensibility  of  these 
creatures  ?  We  may  fairly  judge  their  prob- 
able answers  to  such  inquiries  from  their 
evidence  already  given  before  a   royal  com- 


mission.* 


Dr.  Carpenter  wrould  doubtless  repeat  his 
opinion  that  "  frogs  have  extremely  little  per- 
ception of  pain  ;"  and  in  the  evidence  of  that 

*  The  contradictory  opinions  ascribed  to  most  of  the  authorities 
quoted  in  this  article  are  taken  directly  from  the  "  Report  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Practice  of  Subjecting  Live  Animals  to 
Experiments  for  Scientific  Purposes," — a  Blue-Book  Parliamentary 
Report. 


VIVISECTION.  57 

experienced  physiologist  George  Henry- 
Lewes,  he  would  find  the  cheerful  assurance, 
"  I  do  not  believe  that  frogs  suffer  pain  at 
all."  Our  friend  applies,  let  us  suppose,  to 
Dr.  Klein,  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital, 
who  despises  the  sentimentality  which  regards 
animal  suffering  as  of  the  least  consequence  ; 
and  this  enthusiastic  vivisector  informs  him 
that,  in  his  English  experience,  the  experi- 
ment which  caused  the  greatest  pain  without 
anaesthetics  was  the  cauterization  of  the  cor- 
nea of  a  frog.  Somewhat  confused  at  finding 
that  a  most  painful  experiment  can  be  per- 
formed upon  an  animal  that  does  not  suffer 
he  relates  this  to  Dr.  Swaine  Taylor,  of  Guy's 
Hospital,  who  does  not  think  that  Klein's  ex- 
periment would  cause  severe  suffering;  but 
of  another — placing  a  frog  in  cold  water 
and  raising  the  temperature  to  about  ioo° — 
"  that,"  says  Doctor  Taylor,  "  would  be  a 
cruel  experiment :  I  cannot  see  what  pur- 
pose it  can  answer."  Before  leaving  Guy's 
Hospital,  our  inquiring  friend  meets  Dr. 
Pavy,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  physiologists 


58  VIVISECTION. 

in  England,  who  tells  him  that  in  this  experi- 
ment, stigmatized  by  his  colleague  as  "  cruel," 
the  frog  would  in  reality  suffer  very  little ; 
that  if  we  ourselves  were  treated  to  a  bath 
gradually  raised  from  a  medium  temperature 
to  the  boiling  point,  "  I  think  we  should  not 
feel  any  pain ; "  that  were  we  plunged  at 
once  into  boiling  water,  "even  then,"  says  the 
enthusiastic  and  scientific  Dr.  Pavy,  "  I  do 
not  think  pain  would  be  experienced  !  "  Our 
friend  goes  then  to  Dr.  Sibson,  of  St.  Mary's 
Hospital,  who  as  a  physiologist  of  many 
years'  standing,  sees  no  objection  to  freezing, 
starving,  or  baking  animals  alive  ;  but  he  de- 
clares of  boiling  a  frog,  "  That  is  a  horrible 
idea,  and  I  certainly  am  not  going  to  defend 
it."  Perplexed  more  than  ever,  he  goes  to 
Dr.  Lister, of  King's  College,  and  is  astonished 
upon  being  told  "  that  the  mere  holding  of  a 
frog  in  your  warm  hand  is  about  as  painful 
as  any  experiment  probably  that  you  would 
perform."  Finally,  one  of  the  strongest  ad- 
vocates of  vivisections,  Dr.  Anthony,  pupil  of 
Sir  Charles  Bell,  would  exclaim,  if  a  mere 


VIVISECTION.  59 

exposition  of  the  lungs  of  the  frog  were  re- 
ferred to, "  Fond  as  I  am  of  physiology,  I 
would  not  do  that  for  the  world  ! ' 

Now,  what  has  our  inquirer  learned  by  his 
appeal  to  science  ?  Has  he  gained  any  clear 
and  absolute  knowledge  ?  Hardly  two  of 
the  experimenters  named  agree  upon  one 
simple  yet  most  important  preliminary  of 
research^— the  sensibility  to  pain  of  a  single 
species  of  animals. 

Let  us  interrogate  scientific  opinion  a  little 
further  on  this  question  of  sensibility.  Is  there 
any  difference  in  animals  as  regards  suscep- 
tibility to  pain  ?  Dr.  Anthony  says  that  we 
may  take  the  amount  of  intelligence  in  ani- 
mals as  a  fair  measure  of  their  sensibility — 
that  the  pain  one  would  suffer  would  be  in 
proportion  to  its  intelligence.  Dr.  Ruther- 
ford, Edinburgh,  never  performs  an  experi- 
ment upon  a  cat  or  a  spaniel  if  he  can  help  it, 
because  they  are  so  exceedingly  sensitive ; 
and  Dr.  Horatio  Wood,  of  Philadelphia,  tells 
us  that  the  nervous  system  of  a  cat  is  far 
more  sensitive  than   that  of  the  rabbit.     On 


60  VIVISECTION. 

the  other  hand,  Dr.  Lister,  of  King's  College, 
is  not  aware  of  any  such  difference  in  sensi- 
bility in  animals,  and  Dr.  Brunton,  of  St. 
Bartholomew's,  finds  cats  such  very  good 
animals  to  operate  with  that  he  on  one  oc- 
casion used  ninety  in  making  a  single  ex- 
periment. 

Sir  William  Gull  thinks  "  there  are  but  few 
experiments  performed  on  living  creatures 
where  sensation  is  not  removed,"  yet  Dr. 
Rutherford  admits  "  about  half  "  his  experi- 
ments to  have  been  made  upon  animals  sensi- 
tive to  pain.  Professor  Rolleston,  of  Oxford 
University,  tells  us  "  the  whole  question  of 
anaesthetizing  animals  has  an  element  of  un- 
certainty  " ;  and  Professor  Rutherford  declares 
it  "  impossible  to  say  "  whether  even  artificial 
respiration  is  painful  or  not,  "  unless  the  ani- 
mal can  speak."  Dr.  Brunton,  of  St.  Barthol- 
omew's, says  of  that  most  painful  experi- 
ment, poisoning  by  strychnine,  that  it  cannot 
be  efficiently  shown  if  the  animal  be  under 
chloroform.  Dr.  Davy,  of  Guy's,  on  the  con- 
trary, always  gives  chloroform,  and  finds  it  no 


VIVISECTION.  6 1 

impediment  to  successful  demonstration,  Is 
opium  an  anaesthetic?  Claude  Bernard  de- 
clares that  sensibility  exists  even  though  the 
animal  be  motionless  :  "  //  sent  la  douleur, 
mais  il  a,  pour  ainsi  dire,  perdu  Fidee  de  la 
defense!"  But  Dr.  Brunton,  of  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's hospital,  London,  has  no  hesitation 
whatever  in  contradicting  this  statement "  em- 
phatically, however  high  an  authority  it  may 
be." 

Curare,  a  poison  invented  by  South  Ameri- 
can Indians  for  their  arrows,  is  much  used  in 
physiological  laboratories  to  paralyze  the 
motor  nerves,  rendering  an  animal  absolutely 
incapable  of  the  slightest  disturbing  move- 
ment. Does  it  at  the  same  time  destroy  sen- 
sation, or  is  the  creature  conscious  of  every 
pang?  Claude  Bernard,  of  Paris,  Sharpey, 
of  London,  and  Flint,  of  New  Yorkt  all 
agree  that  sensation  is  not  abolished ;  on  the 
other  hand,  Rutherford  regards  curare  as  a 
partial  anaesthetic,  and  Huxley  strongly  inti- 

*  ' '  He   feels  the  pain,  but  has  lost,  so  to  speak,  the  idea  of  self 
defense."     Lecons  de  Physiologie  operatoire,   1879,  p.  1 15. 
f  Text-Book  of  Human  Physiology,  p.  595. 


62  VIVISECTION. 

mates  that  Bernard  in  thus  deciding  from  ex- 
periments that  it  does  not  affect  the  cerebral 
hemispheres  or  consciousness,  "jumped  at  a 
conclusion  for  which  neither  he  nor  anybody 
else  had  any  scientific  justification."  This  is 
extraordinary  language  for  one  experimental- 
ist to  use  regarding  others  !  If  it  is  possible 
that  such  men  as  Claude  Bernard  and  Profes- 
sor Flint  have  "  jumped  at  "  one  utterly  un- 
scientific conclusion,  notwithstanding  the 
most  painstaking  of  vivisections,  what  security 
have  we  that  other  of  our  theories  in  physiol- 
ogy now  regarded  as  absolutely  established 
may  not  be  one  day  as  severely  ridiculed  by 
succeeding  investigators  ?  Is  it,  after  all,  true, 
that  the  absolute  certainty  of  our  most  im- 
portant deductions  must  remain  forever  hid- 
den "  unless  the  animal  can  speak  "  ? 

II.  Between  advocating  State  supervision 
of  painful  vivisection,  and  proposing  with 
Mr.  Bergh  the  total  suppression  of  all  experi- 
ments, painful  or  otherwise,  there  is  manifestly 
a  very  wide  distinction.  Unfortunately,  the 
suggestion  of  any  interference  whatever  in- 


VIVISECTION.  63 

variably  rouses  the  anger  of  those  most  inter- 
ested— an  indignation  as  unreasonable,  to  say 
the  least,  as  that  of  the  merchant  who  refuses 
a  receipt  for  money  just  paid  to  him,  on  the 
ground  that  a  request  for  a  written  acknowl- 
edgement is  a  reflection  upon  his  honesty. 
I  cannot  see  how  otherwise  than  by  State 
supervision  we  are  to  reach  abuses  which  con- 
fessedly exist.  Can  we  trust  the  sensitiveness 
and  conscience  of  every  experimenter  ?  No- 
body claims  this.  One  of  the  leading  physiol- 
ogists in  this  country,  Dr.  John  C.  Dalton, 
admits  "that  vivisection  may  be,  and  has 
been,  abused  by  reckless,  unfeeling,  or  un- 
skillful persons ;  "  that  he  himself  has  witness- 
ed abroad,  in  a  veterinary  institution,  opera- 
tions than  which  "  nothing  could  be  more 
shocking."  And  yet  the  unspeakable  atro- 
cities at  Alfort,  to  which,  apparently,  Dr. 
Dalton  alludes,  were  defended  upon  the  very 
ground  he  occupies  to-day  in  advocating  ex- 
periments of  the  modern  laboratory  and  class- 
room ;  for  the  Academie  des  Sciences  decided 
that   there   was   "  no  occasion   to   take  any 


64  VIVISECTION. 

notice  of  complaints ;  that  in  the  future,  as 
in  the  past,  vivisectional  experiments  must  be 
left  entirely  to  the  judgment  of  scientific  men." 
What  seemed  "  atrocious  "  to  the  more  tender- 
hearted Anglo-Saxon  was  pronounced  entirely 
justifiable  by  the  French  Academy  of  Science. 
A  curious  question  suggests  itself  in  con- 
nection with  this  point.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  I  think,  that  the  sentiment  of  com- 
passion and  of  sympathy  with  suffering  is 
more  generally  diffused  among  all  classes  of 
Great  Britain  than  elsewhere  in  Europe ; 
and  one  cannot  help  wondering  what  our 
place  might  be,  were  it  possible  to  institute 
any  reliable  comparison  of  national  humanity. 
Should  we  be  found  in  all  respects  as  sensi- 
tive as  the  English  people  ?  Would  indigna- 
tion and  protest  be  as  quickly  and  spontane- 
ously evoked  among  us  by  a  cruel  act  ?  The 
question  may  appear  an  ungracious  one,  yet 
it  seems  to  me  there  exists  some  reason  why 
it  should  be  plainly  asked.  There  is  a  certain 
experiment — one   of   the   most   excruciating 


VIVISECTION.  65 

that  can  be  performed — which  consists  in  ex- 
posing the  spinal  cord  of  the  dog  for  the  pur- 
pose of  demonstrating  the  functions  of  the 
spinal  nerves.  It  is  one,  by  the  way,  which 
Dr.  Wilder  forgot  to  enumerate  in  his  sum- 
mary of  the  "  four  kinds  of  experiments/' 
since  it  is  not  the  "  cutting  operation  "  which 
forms  its  chief  peculiarity  or  to  which  special 
objection  would  be  made.  At  present  all  this 
preliminary  process  is  generally  performed 
under  anaesthetics  :  it  is  an  hour  or  two  later, 
when  the  animal  has  partly  recovered  from 
the  severe  shock  of  the  operation,  that  the 
wound  is  reopened  and  the  experiment  be- 
gins. It  was  during  a  class  demonstration 
of  this  kind  by  Magendie,  before  the  in- 
troduction of  ether,  that  the  circumstance 
occurred  which  one  hesitates  to  think  pos- 
sible in  a  person  retaining  a  single  spark 
of  humanity  or  pity.  "  I  recall  to  mind," 
says  Dr.  Latour,  who  was  present  at  the 
time,  "  a  poor  dog,  the  roots  of  whose 
vertebral  nerves  Magendie  desired  to  lay  bare 

'*>>*   OF  THS     X  > 


66  VIVISECTION. 

to  demonstrate  Bell's  theory,  which  he  claimed 
as  his  own.  The  dog,  mutilated  and  bleeding 
twice  escaped  from  under  the  implacable 
knife,  and  threw  its  front  paws  around 
Magendie's  neck,  licking,  as  if  to  soften  his 
murderer  and  ask  for  mercy !  I  confess  I  was 
unable  to  endure  that  heartrending  spectacle." 

It  was  probably  in  reference  to  this  experi- 
ment that  Sir  Charles  Bell,  the  greatest  Eng- 
lish physiologist  of  our  century,  writing  to 
his  brother  in  1822,  informs  him  that  he  hesi- 
tates to  go  on  with  his  investigations.  "  You 
may  think  me  silly,"  he  adds, "  but  I  cannot  per- 
fectly convince  myself  that  I  am  authorized 
in  nature  or  religion  to  do  these  cruelties." 
Now,  what  do  English  physiologists  and  vivi- 
sectors  of  the  present  day  think  of  the  repe- 
tition of  this  experiment  solely  as  a  class  de- 
monstration ? 

They  have  candidly  expressed  their  opinions 
before  a  royal  commission.  Dr.  David  Fer- 
rier,  of  King's  college,  noted  for  his  experi- 
ments upon  the  brain  of  monkeys,  affirms  his 


VIVISECTION.  67 

belief  that  "  students  would  rebel "  at  the 
sight  of  a  painful  experiment.  Dr.  Ruther- 
ford, who  certainly  dared  do  all  that  may  be- 
come a  physiologist,  confesses  mournfully, 
11  /  dare  not  show  an  experiment  upon  a  dog 
or  rabbit  before  students,  when  the  animal  is 
not  anaesthetized."  Dr.  Pavy,  of  Guy's  Hos- 
pital, asserts  that  a  painful  experiment  intro- 
duced before  a  class  "  would  not  be  tolerated 
for  a  moment."  Sir  William  Gull,  M.  D.,  be- 
lieves that  the  repetition  of  an  operation  like 
this  upon  the  spinal  nerves  would  excite  the 
reprobation  alike  of  teacher,  pupils,  and  the 
public  at  large.  Michael  Foster,  of  Cam- 
bridge University,  who  minutely  describes  all 
the  details  of  the  experiment  on  recurrent 
sensibility  in  the  "  Handbook  for  the  Physio- 
logical Laboratory,"  nevertheless  tells  us,  "  I 
have  not  performed  it,  and  have  never 
seen  it  done,"  partly,  as  he  confesses,  "from 
horror  at  the  pain."  And  finally  Dr.  Burdon- 
Sanderson,  physiologist  at  University  Col- 
lege,   London,   states  with   the    utmost   em- 


6  8  VI  VISE  C  TION. 

phasis,  in  regard  to  the  performance  of 
this  demonstration  on  the  spinal  cord,  "  I 
am  perfectly  certain  that  no  physiologist — 
none  of  the  leading  men  in  Germany,  for  ex- 
ample— would  exhibit  an  experiment  of  that 
kind." 

Now  mark  the  contrast.  This  experiment 
— which  we  are  told  passes  even  the  callous- 
ness of  Germany  to  repeat;  which  every  lead- 
ing champion  of  vivisection  in  Great  Britain 
reprobates  for  medical  teaching  ;  which  some 
of  them  shrink  even  from  seeing,  themselves, 
from  horror  at  the  tortures  necessarily  inflicted ; 
which  the  most  ruthless  among  them  dare  not 
exhibit  to  the  young  men  of  England, — this 
experiment  has  been  performed  publicly  again 
and  again  in  American  medical  colleges, 
without  exciting,  so  far  as  we  know,  even  a 
whisper  of  protest  or  the  faintest  murmur  of 
remonstrance !  The  proof  is  to  be  found  in 
the  published  statements  of  the  experimenter 
himself.  In  his  "  Text-Book  of  Physiology," 
Professor  Flint  says,  "  Magendie  showed  very 


VIVISECTION.  69 

satisfactorily  that  the  posterior  roots  (of  the 
spinal  cord)  were  exclusively  sensory,  and 
this  fact  has  been  confirmed  by  more  recent 
observations  upon  the  higher  classes  of  ani- 
mals. We  have  ourselves  frequently  exposed 
and  irritated  the  roots  of  the  nerves  in  dogs, 
in  public  demonstrations  in  experiments  on 
the  recurrent  sensibility,  .  .  .  and  in  an- 
other series  of  observations."  * 

This  is  the  experience  of  a  single  profes- 
sional teacher;  but  it  is  improbable  that  this 
experiment  has  been  shown  only  to  the  stu- 
dents of  a  single  medical  college  in  the  United 
States  ;  it  has  doubtless  been  repeated  again 
and  again  in  different  colleges  throughout 
the  country.  If  Englishmen  are,  then,  so  ex- 
tremely sensitive  as  Ferrier,  Gull,  and  Bur- 
don-Sanderson  would  have  us  believe,  we 
must  necessarily  conclude  that  the  sentiment 
of  compassion  is  far  greater  in  Britain  than 
in  America.     Have  we  drifted  backward  in 


*  "  A  Text-Book  of  Human  Physiology."     By  Austin  Flint,  Jr. 
M,  D.     New  York,  1876.     Page  589  ;  see  also  page  674, 


70  VIVISECTION. 

humanity  ?  Have  American  students  learned 
to  witness,  without  protest,  tortures  at  the 
sight  of  which  English  students  would  rebel  ? 
We  are  told  that  there  is  no  need  of  any  pub- 
lic sensitiveness  on  this  subject.  We  should 
trust  entirely,  as  they  do  in  France, — at  Al- 
fort,  for  example, — "  to  the  judgment  of  the 
investigator."  There  must  be  no  lifting  of 
the  veil  to  the  outside  multitude ;  for  the 
priests  of  this  unpitying  science  there  must 
be  as  absolute  immunity  from  criticism  or  in- 
quiry as  was  ever  demanded  before  the  shrine 
of  Delphi  or  the  altars  of  Baal.  "  Let  them 
exercise  their  solemn  office,"  demands  Dr. 
Wilder,  "  not  only  unrestrained  by  law,  but 
upheld  by  public  sentiment." 

For  myself,  I  cannot  believe  this  position 
is  tenable.  Nothing  seems  to  me  more  cer- 
tain than  the  results  that  must  follow  if  popu- 
lar sentiment  in  this  country  shall  knowingly 
sustain  the  public  demonstration  of  an  ex- 
periments in  pain,  which  can  find  no  defender 
among  the  physiologists  of  Great  Britain.    It 


VIVISECTION.  7l 

has  been  my  fortune  to  know  something  of 
the  large  hospitals  of  Europe  ;  and  I  confess 
I  do  not  know  a  single  one  in  countries  where 
painful  vivisection  flourishes,  unchecked  by 
law,  wherein  the  poor  and  needy  sick  are 
treated  with  the  sympathy,  the  delicacy,  or 
even  the  decency,  which  so  universally  char- 
acterize the  hospitals  of  England.  When 
Magendie,  operating  for  cataract,  plunged  his 
needle  to  the  bottom  of  his  patient's  eye,  that 
he  might  note  upon  a  human  being  the  effect 
produced  by  mechanical  irritation  of  the  re- 
tina, he  demonstrated  how  greatly  the  zeal  of 
the  enthusiast  may  impair  the  responsibility 
of  the  physician  and  the  sympathy  of  man  for 
man. 

III.  The  utility  of  vivisection  in  advancing 
therapeutics,  despite  much  argument,  still  re- 
mains an  open  question.  No  one  is  so  foolish 
as  to  deny  the  possibility  of  future  usefulness 
to  any  discovery  whatever ;  but  there  is  a 
distinction,  very  easily  slurred  over  in  the 
eagerness  of  debate,  between  present  applic- 


72  VIVISECTION. 

ability  and  remotely  potential  service.  If 
the  pains  inflicted  on  animals  are  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  protection  of  human  life  and 
the  advancement  of  practical  skill  in  medi- 
cine, should  sentiment  be  permitted  to  check 
investigation  ?  An  English  prelate,  the  Bishop 
of  Peterborough,  speaking  in  Parliament  on 
this  subject,  once  told  the  House  of  Lords 
that  "  it  was  very  difficult  to  decide  what  was 
unnecessary  pain,"  and  as  an  example  of  the 
perplexities  which  arose  in  his  own  mind  he 
mentioned  "  the  case  of  the  wretched  man 
who  was  convicted  of  skinning  cats  alive,  be- 
cause their  skins  were  more  valuable  when 
taken  from  the  living  animal  than  from  the 
dead  one.  The  extra  money,"  added  the 
Bishop,  "  got  the  man  a  dinner  !  "  *  Whether 
in  this  particular  case  the  excuse  was  well 
received  by  the  judge,  the  reverend  prelate 
neglected  to  inform  us  ;  but  it  is  certain  that 
the  plea  for  painful  experimentation  rests 
substantially  on  the  same  basis.     Out  of  the 

*  See  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  June  20,  1876. 


VIVISECTION,  7$ 

agonies  of  sentient  brutes  we  are  to  pluck  the 
secret  of  longer  living  and  the  art  of  surer 
triumph  over  intractable  disease. 

But  has  this  hope  been  fulfilled  ?  Pasteur, 
we  are  told,  has  claimed  the  discovery  of  a 
cure  for  hydrophobia  through  experiments  on 
animals.  It  may  be  well  worth  its  cost 
if  only  true;  but  we  cannot  forget  that  its 
practical  value  is  by  no  means  yet  demon- 
strated. Aside  from  this,  has  physiological 
experimentation  during  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  contributed  such  marked  improve- 
ments in  therapeutic  methods  that  we  find 
certain  and  tangible  evidence  thereof  in  the 
diminishing  fatality  of  any  disease  ?  Can  one 
mention  a  single  malady  which  thirty  years 
ago  resisted  every  remedial  effort,  to  which 
the  more  enlightened  science  of  to-day  can 
offer  hopes  of  recovery  ?  These  seem  to  me 
perfectly  legitimate  and  fair  questions,  and, 
fortunately,  in  one  respect,  capable  of  a  scien- 
tific reply.  I  suppose  the  opinion  of  the  late 
Claude  Bernard,  of  Paris,  would  be  generally 


74  VIVISECTION. 

accepted  as  that  of  the  highest  scientific  au- 
thority on  the  utility  of  vivisection  in  "  prac- 
tical medicine  ; "  but  he  tells  us  that  it  is 
hardly  worth  while  to  make  the  inquiry. 
"  Without  doubt,"  he  confessed,  "  our  hands 
are  empty  to-day,  although  our  mouths  are 
full  of  legitimate  promises  for  the  future." 

Was  Claude  Bernard  correct  in  this  opin- 
ion as  to  the  "  empty  hands  ?  "  If  scientific 
evidence  is  worth  anything,  it  points  to  the 
appalling  conclusion  that,  notwithstanding 
all  the  researches  of  physiology,  the  chief  forms 
of  chronic  disease  exhibit  to-day  in  England  a 
greater  fatality  than  thirty  years  ago.  In  the 
following  table  I  have  indicated  the  average 
annual  mortality,  per  million  inhabitants,  of 
certain  diseases,  first,  for  the  period  of  five 
years  from  1850  to  1854,  and  secondly,  for  the 
period  twenty-five  years  later,  from  1875  to 
1879.  The  authority  is  beyond  question  ; 
the  facts  are  collected  from  the  report  to 
Parliament  of  the  Registrar-general  of  Eng- 
land : 


VIVISECTION. 


75 


Average  Annual  Rate  of  Mortality  in  England,  from 
Causes  of  Death,  per  One  Million  Inhabitants. 


During 

During 

NAME   OF   DISEASE. 

Five    Years, 

Five    Years, 

1850-54. 

1875-79, 

Gout.            .... 

12 

25 

Aneurism,  . 

l6 

32 

Diabetes,    . 

23 

41 

Insanity,    . 

29 

57 

Syphilis,     . 

37 

86 

Epilepsy,    . 

105 

119 

Bright's  disease, 

32 

182 

Kidney  disease, 

94 

114 

Brain  disease, 

192 

281 

Liver  disease, 

215 

291 

Heart  disease,    . 

651 

1,335 

Cancer, 

302 

492 

Paralysis,   . 

440 

501 

Apoplexy, 

454 

552 

Tubercular   diseases    and    dis- 

eases of  the  Respiratory  Or- 

gans,      .... 

6,424 

6,886 

Mortality  from  above 

dise? 

ises  : 

9,026 

10,994 

This  is  certainly  a  most  startling  exhibit, 
when  we  remember  that  from  only  these  few 
causes  about  half  of  all  the  deaths  in  Eng- 
land annually  occur,  and  that  from  them  re- 
sult the  deaths  of  two-thirds  of  the  persons, 
of  both  sexes,  who  reach  the  age  of  twenty 
years.*     What  are  the   effects  here  discern- 

*  In   1879  the  total  mortality   in  England,  above  the  age   of 


76  VIUISECTION. 

ible  of  Bernard's  experiments  upon  diabetes  ? 
of  Brown-Sequard's  upon  epilepsy  and  paraly- 
sis ?  of  Flint's  and  Pavy's  on  diseases  of  the 
liver  ?  of  Ferrier's  researches  upon  the  func- 
tions of  the  brain  ?  Let  us  appeal  from  the 
heated  enthusiasm  of  the  experimenter  to  the 
stern  facts  of  the  statistician.  Why,  so  far 
from  having  obtained  the  least  mastery  over 
those  malignant  forces  which  seem  forever  to 
elude  and  baffle  our  art,  they  are  actually 
gaining  upon  us  ;  every  one  of  these  forms  of 
disease  is  more  fatal  to-day  in  England  than 
thirty  years  ago;  during  1879  over  sixty 
thousand  more  deaths  resulted  from  these 
maladies  alone  than  would  have  occurred  had 
the  rate  of  mortality  from  them  been  simply 
that  which  prevailed  during  the  benighted 
period  of  1850  to  1854  !  True,  during  later 
years  there  has  been  a  diminished  mortality 
in  England,  but  it  is  from  the  lesser  preval- 
ence of  zymotic  diseases,  which  no  one  to- 
day  pretends    to   cure ;    while    the   organic 

twenty,  from  all  causes  whatsoever,  was  287,093.  Of  these  deaths, 
the  number  occasioned  by  the  sixteen  causes  above  named,  was 
191,706,  or  almost  exactly  two-thirds. 


VIVISECTION.  77 

diseases  show  a  constant  tendency  to  increase. 
Part  of  this  may  be  due  to  more  accurate 
diagnosis  and  clearer  definition  of  mortality 
causes  :  but  this  will  not  explain  a  phenome- 
non which  is  too  evident  to  be  overlooked. 

"  It  is  a  fact,"  says  the  Registrar-general,  in 
his  report  for  1879,  "  that  while  mortality  in 
early  life  has  been  very  notably  diminished, 
tke  mortality  of  persons  in  middle  or  advanced 
life  has  bee7i  steadily  rising  for  a  long  period 
of  years"'  It  is  probable  that  the  same  story 
would  be  told  by  the  records  of  France,  Ger- 
many, and  other  European  countries ;  it  is 
useless,  of  course,  to  refer  to  America,  since 
in  regard  to  statistical  information  we  still 
lag  behind  every  country  which  pretends  to 
be  civilized.  *  Undoubtedly  it  would  be  a 
false  assumption  which  from  these  facts  should 
deduce  retrogression  in  medical  art  or  deny 
advance  and  improvement ;  but  they  cer- 
tainly indicate  that  the  boasted  superiority  of 
modern  medicine  over  the  skill  of  our  fathers, 


*  Even  Japan,  a  country  we  are  apt  to  consider  as  somewhat 
benighted,  has  far  better  statistical  information  at  hand  than  the 
United  States  of  America. 


78  VIVISECTION. 

due  to  physiological  researches,  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  only  impartial  authority  to 
which    science    can    appeal  for    evidence   of 

results. 

*  #  * 

What  then  is  the  substance  of  the  whole 
matter  ?  It  seems  to  me  the  following  con- 
clusions are  justified  by  the  facts  presented. 

I.  All  experiments  upon  living  animals 
may  be  divided  into  two  general  classes  ;  ist 
those  which  produce  pain, — slight,  brief,  severe 
or  atrociously  acute  and  prolonged;  and  2nd, 
those  experiments  which  are  performed  under 
complete  anaesthesia  from  which  either  death 
ensues  during  unconsciousness,  or  entire  re- 
covery may  follow. 

II.  The  majority  of  vivisections  requisite 
for  purposes  of  teaching  physiological  facts 
may  be  so  carried  on  as  to  take  life  with  less 
pain  or  inconvenience  to  the  animal  than  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  in  order  to  furnish  meat  for 
our  tables.  Those  who  would  make  it  a  penal 
offense  to  submit  to  a  class  of  college  students 
the   unconscious  and  painless  demonstration 


VIVISECTION.  79 

of  functional  activity  of  the  heart,  for  example, 
and  yet  demand  for  the  gratification  of  appe- 
tite the  daily  slaughter  of  oxen  and  sheep 
without  anaesthetics,  and  without  any  attempt 
to  minimize  the  agony  of  terror,  fear  and  pain 
— may  not  be  inconsistent.  But  it  is  a  view 
the  writer  cannot  share. 

III.  Prohibition  of  all  experiments  may  be 
fairly  demanded  by  those  who  believe  that 
the  enthusiastic  ardor  of  the  scientific  experi- 
menter or  lecturer,  will  outweigh  all  con- 
siderations of  good  faith,  provided  success  or 
failure  of  his  experiment  depend  on  the  con- 
sciousness of  pain.  In  other  words,  that  the 
experimenter  himself,  as  a  rule,  cannot  be 
trusted  to  obey  the  law,  should  the  law  re- 
strict. 

This  also  is  an  extreme  position. 

IV.  Absolute  liberty  in  the  matter  of  pain- 
ful experiments  has  produced  admitted  abuses 
by  physiologists  of  Germany,  France  and 
Italy.  In  America  it  has  led  to  the  repetition 
before  classes  of  students  of  Magendie's  ex- 
treme cruelties, — demonstrations  which  have 


80  VIVISECTION. 

been  condemned  by  every  leading  English 
physiologist. 

V.  In  view  of  the  dangerous  impulses  not 
unfrequently  awakened  by  the  sight  of  pain 
intentionally  inflicted,  experiments  of  this 
kind  should  be  by  legal  enactment  absolutely 
forbidden  before  classes  of  students,  especially 
in  our  Public  Schools. 

VI.  It  is  not  in  accord  with  scientific  ac- 
curacy to  contend  for  unlimited  freedom  of 
painful  experimentation,  on  the  ground  of  its 
vast  utility  to  humanity  in  the  discovery  of 
new  methods  for  the  cure  of  disease.  On  the 
contrary,  so  far  as  can  be  discovered  by  a 
careful  study  of  English  mortality  statistics, 
physiological  experiments  upon  living  ani- 
mals for  fifty  years  back  have  in  no  single 
instance  lessened  the  fatality  of  any  disease 
below  its  average  of  thirty-five  years  ago. 

VII.  Vivisection,  involving  the  infliction 
of  pain  is,  even  in  its  best  possible  aspect,  a 
necessary  evil,  and  ought  at  once  to  be  re- 
stricted within  the  narrowest  limits,  and 
placed  under  the  supervision  of  the  State. 


APPENDIX. 


For  reasons  sufficiently  stated  in  the  preceding 
pages,  the  writer  does  not  advocate  the  total  abolition 
of  all  experimentation.  It  is  only  fair  to  acknowl- 
edge, however,  that  very  strong  and  weighty  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  legal  repression  have  been  advanced 
both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  some  of  which  are 
herewith  presented,  as  the  other  side  of  the  question. 

The  cause  of  abolition  has  no  more  earnest  and 
eloquent  advocate  than  Miss  Frances  Power  Cobbe 
of  England.  Through  innumerable  controversies 
with  scientific  men  in  the  public  journals,  magazines 
and  reviews,  she  has  presented  in  awful  array,  the 
abuses  of  unlimited  and  uncontrolled  experimenta- 
tion on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  the  arguments 
in  favor  of  total  repression.  The  following  letters, 
extracts  from  her  public  correspondence,  will  indicate 
her  position. 


82  APPENDIX. 

TENDER  VIVISECTION. 
(To  the  Editor  of  the  ' '  Scotsman.  ") 

i,  Victoria  Street,  London,  S.  W., 
January  10,  1881. 
Sir. — An  Italian  pamphlet,  DelVAzione  del  Dolore 
sulla  Respirazione  (The  Action  of  Pain  on  Respiration), 
has  just  reached  my  hands,  and  as  it  is,  I  think, 
quite  unknown  in  this  country,  I  will  beg  you  to 
grant  me  space  for  a  few  extracts  from  its  pages. 
The  pamphlet  is  by  the  eminent  physiologist,  Man- 
tegazza,  and  was  published  by  Chiusi,  of  Milan. 
Having  explained  the  object  of  his  investigations 
to  be  the  effects  of  pain  on  the  respiratory  organs, 
the  Professor  describes  (p.  20)  the  methods  he  de- 
vised for  the  production  of  such  pain.  He  found  the 
best  to  consist  in  "planting  nails,  sharp  and  numer- 
ous, through  the  feet  of  the  animal  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  render  the  creature  almost  motionless,  because 
in  every  movement  it  would  have  felt  its  torment 
more  acutely  *'  (piantando  chiodi  acuti  e  numerosi  at- 
traverso  le  piante  dei piedi  in  modo  da  render e  immo- 
bile o  quasi  Fa?iimale,  per  che  ad  ogni movimento  avrebbe 
sentito  molto  piu  acuto  il  suo  tormento).  Further  on  he 
mentions  that,  to  produce  still  more  intense  pain 
{dolore  in/enso)  he  was  obliged  to  employ  lesions, 
followed  by  inflammation.  An  ingenious  machine, 
constructed  by  ' '  our  "  Tecnomasio,  of  Milan,  en- 
abled him  likewise  to  grip  any  part  of  an  animal  with 


APPENDIX.  83 

pincers  with  iron  teeth,  and  to  crush,  or  tear,  or  lift 
up  the  victim,  "soas  to  produce  pain  in  every  pos- 
sible way."  A  drawing  of  this  instrument  is  ap- 
pended. The  first  series  of  his  experiments,  Signor 
Mantegazza  informs  us,  were  tried  on  twelve  animals, 
chiefly  rabbits  and  guinea  pigs,  of  which  several 
were  pregnant.  One  poor  little  creature,  ' '  far  ad- 
vanced in  pregnancy,"  was  made  to  endure  dolori 
atrocissimi,  so  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  any 
observations  in  consequence  of  its  convulsions. 

In  the  second  series  of  experiments  twenty-eight 
animals  were  sacrificed,  some  of  them  taken  from 
nursing  their  young,  exposed  to  torture  for  an  hour 
or  two,  then  allowed  to  rest  an  hour,  and  usually  re- 
placed in  the  machine  to  be  crushed  or  torn  by  the 
Professor  for  periods  of  from  two  to  six  hours  more. 
In  the  table  wherein  these  experiments  are  summed 
up,  the  terms  motto  do/ore  and  crudeli  dolori  are  deli- 
cately distinguished,  the  latter  being  apparently  re- 
served for  the  cases  when  the  victims  were,  as  the 
Professor  expresses  it,  lardellati  di  Modi — ("larded 
with  nails  "). 

In  conclusion,  the  author  informs  us  (p.   25)  that 
these  experiments  were  all  conducted  "con  motto  amor e 
e  pazienzaf" — with  much  zeal  and  patience. 
I  am,  etc., 

Frances  Power  Cobbe. 


84  APPENDIX. 

In  a  controversy  with  Dr.  Pye-Smith,  who  had 
read  a  paper  before  the  British  Association,  Miss 
Cobbe  writes  as  follows  to  one  of  the  public  journals  : 

"Dr.  Pye-Smith  is  reported  to  have  said  :  'Hap- 
pily, the  neccessary  experiments  were  comparatively 
few.'  Few!  What  are  a  "few"  experiments? 
Professor  Schiff  in  ten  years  experimented  on  14,000 
dogs,  given  over  to  him  by  the  Municipality  of 
Florence,  and  returned  their  carcases  so  mangled 
that  the  man  who  had  contracted  for  their  skins 
found  them  useless.  He  also  experimented  on 
pigeons,  cats,  and  rabbits  to  the  number,  it  is  calcu- 
lated, of  70,000  creatures ;  and  he  now  asks  for  ten 
dogs  a  week  in  Geneva.  All  over  Germany  and 
France  there  are  laboratories  ' '  using  "  (as  the  horri- 
ble phrase  is)  numberless  animals,  inasmuch  as  I 
have  just  received  a  letter  stating  that  dogs  are 
actually  becoming  scarce  in  Lyons,  and  it  is  pro- 
posed to  breed  them  for  the  purpose  of  Vivisection. 
Be  this  true  or  not,  I  invite  any  of  your  readers  to  visit 
the  office  of  the  Victoria  Street  Society,  and  examine 
the  volumes  of  splendid  plates  of  vivisecting  instru- 
ments, which  will  there  be  shown  them,  and  then  judge 
for  themselves  whether  it  be  for  a  few  experiments  that 
those  elaborate  and  costly  inventions  have  become  a 
regular  branch  of  manufacture.  Let  them  examine 
the  volume  of  the  English  handbook  of  the  physiol- 
ogical laboratory,  the  volume  of  Cyon's  magnificent 


APPENDIX.  85 

atlas,  with  its  54  plates,  the  Archives  de  Physiologie, 
with  its  191  plates,  the  Physiologische  Methodik,  or 
Claude  Bernard's  Lecons  sur  la  Chaleur  Animate,  with 
its  pictures  of  the  stoves  wherein  he  baked  dogs  and 
rabbits  alive  ;  and  after  these  sights  of  disgust  and 
horror  they  will  know  how  to  understand  the  word 
"few  "in  the  vocabulary  of  a  physiologist.  I  am 
glad  to  hear  that  a  German  opponent  of  Vivisection 
recently  entering  a  shop  devoted  to  the  sale  of  these 
tools  of  torture,  was  greeted  by  the  proprietor  with  a 
volley  of  abuse:  'It  is  you  and  your  friends,'  he 
said,  '  who  are  destroying  my  trade.  I  used  to  sell 
a  hundred  of  Czermak's  tables  and  other  instruments 
for  one  I  sell  now. 

"Dr.  Pye-Smith  said  :  'Many  of  the  experiments 
inflicted  no  pain  or  injury  whatever^and  the  great  ma- 
jority of  the  rest  were  rendered  painless  by  the  use  of 
those  beneficial  agents  which  abolished  pain  and  had 
themselves  been  discovered  by  experiments  upon 
living  animals.'  As  to  the  use  of  anaesthetics  in 
annulling  the  agonies  of  mutilated  animals,  the 
audience  ought  to  have  asked  Dr.  Pye-Smith  to 
explain  whether  he  intended  to  refer  to  chloroform,  or 
the  narcotic  morphia,  or,  lastly,  to  the  drug  curare. 
If  he  referred  to  chloroform,  Dr.  Hoggan  tells  from 
his  own  experience  (Anceslhetics,  p.  1),  that  'nothing 
can  be  more  uncertain  than  its  influence  on  the 
lower  animals  ;  many  of  them  die  before  they  become 


$6  APPENDIX. 

insensible.  Complete  and  conscientious  anaesthesia 
is  seldom  even  attempted,  the  animal  getting  at  most 
a  slight  whiff  of  chloroform  by  way  of  satisfying  the 
conscience  of  the  operator,  or  enabling  him  to  make 
statements  of  a  humane  character.'  Even  if  it  were 
conscientiously  administered  at  the  beginning  of  an 
experiment,  how  little  would  chloroform  diminish 
the  misery  of  Rutherford's  dogs  or  Brunton's  ninety 
cats,  whose  long-drawn  agonies  extended  over  many 
days?  How  little  could  it  affect  in  any  way  the 
cases  of  starving,  poisoning,  baking,  stewing  to 
death,  or  burning, — like  the  twenty-five  dogs  over 
which  Professor  Wertheim  poured  turpentine  and 
then  set  them  on  fire,  leaving  them  afterwards  slowly 
to  perish?  If  Dr.  Pye-Smith  was  thinking  of 
morphia,  the  reader  may  refer  to  Claude  Bernard's 
Lemons  de  Physiologie  Operatoire,  where  he  will  find 
that  great  physiologists  recommends  its  use  ;  but  at 
the  same  time  mentions  (as  of  no  particular  conse- 
quence) that  the  animal  subjected  to  its  influence 
still  'suffers  pain.'  I  can  hardly  suppose,  lastly,  that 
Dr.  Pye-Smith  was  secretly  thinking  of  curare,  and 
that  he  is  one  of  those  whom  Tennyson  says  would 

' '  Mangle  the  living  dog  which  loved  him  and  fawned  at  his  knee, 
Drenched  with  the  hellish  oorali." 

It  is  bad  enough  to  "mangle"  a  loving  and  intelli- 
gent creature  without  adding  to  its  agonies  the 
paralysis  of  the  powers  of  motion,  and  the  increased 


APPENDIX.  $7 

sensibility  to  pain  occasioned  by  this  horrible  drug, 
which  nevertheless  Bernard,  in  the  work  above 
quoted,  says  is  in  such  common  use  among  physiol- 
ogists, that  when  an  experiment  is  not  otherwise 
described,  it  may  always  be  "taken  for  granted  it  has 
been  performed  on  a  curarized  dog." 

Finally,  Dr.  Pye-Smith  says,  "It  was  remarkable 
that  the  small  residue  of  experiments  in  which  some 
amount  of  pain  was  necessary  were  chiefly  those  in 
which  the  direct  and  immediate  benefit  to  mankind 
was  more  obvious.  He  referred  to  the  trying  of 
drugs  on  animals,  to  discovering  antidotes  to  poisons, " 
etc,  The  bribe  here  offered  to  human  selfishness 
is  an  ingenious  one.  "  Let  us,"  the  physiologists 
say,  "retain  the  right  to  put  animals  to  torture,  for 
it  is  very  '  remarkable '  that  when  we  do  so  it  is 
always  in  your  interest !  "  Unluckily  for  this  appeal 
to  the  meaner  feelings  of  human  nature,  which 
these  modern  instructors  of  our  young  men  are 
not  ashamed  to  put  forward,  it  is  difficult  for  them 
to  hit  on  any  one  instance  wherein  out  of  their  "  few  " 
(million)  experiments  any  good  to  mankind  has  been, 
even  apparently,  achieved.  As  Claude  Bernard  hon- 
estly said,  at  least  as  regards  any  benefit  for  suffering 
humanity,  "  Nbs  mains  sont  vides."  As  to  the  trying 
of  drugs  on  animals,  Dr.  Pritchard,  who  is,  I  believe, 
the  best  living  authority  on  the  subject,  told  the 
Royal  Commission  (Minutes,  908),  "I  do  not  think 


88  APPENDIX. 

that  the  use  of  drugs  on  animals  can  be  taken  as  a 
guide  to  the  doses  or  to  the  action  of  the  same  drugs 
on  the  human  subjects."  As  to  the  discovery  of  an- 
tidotes to  poison,  the  only  man  who  seems  on  the 
verge  of  any  success  is  the  brave  and  noble  fellow 
who  has  been  trying  such  experiments  not  on 
animals  but  on  himself. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  add  one  word  on  Dr.  Pye- 
Smith's  last  sentence,  namely,  "that  legislation 
against  vivisection  is  injurious  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  community. "  Sir,  I  know  not  what  vivisectors 
deem  to  be  the  best  interests  of  the  community.  For 
my  part  I  do  not  reckon  them  to  be  the  influence  of 
drugs,  nor  yet  susceptible  of  being  carved  out  with 
surgical  instruments.  I  do  not  think  that  they  con- 
sist in  escape  from  physical  pain,  nor  even  in  the 
prolongation  for  a  few  years  of  our  little  earthly  life. 
I  hold  that  the  best  interests  of  the  community  are 
the  moral  and  immortal  interests  of  every  soul  in  such 
community,  namely,  the  conquest  of  selfishness, 
cowardice,  and  cruelty,  and  the  development  of  the 
god-like  sense  of  justice  and  love — the  growth  of  the 
divinest  thing  in  human  nature,  the  faculty  of  sym- 
pathizing with  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  all  God's 
creatures.  Believing  these  to  be  "the  best  interests 
of  the  community, "  I  ask,  without  hesitation,  for  the 
suppression  of  this  abominable  trade,  which  can  best 
be  described  as  "  Pitilessness  practised  as  a  profes- 


APPENDIX.  89 

sion."  If  vivisection  be  indeed  the  true  method  of 
studying  physiology,  if  physiology  cannot  be  ad- 
vanced except  by  vivisection,  if  chemical  observation 
and  microscopic  research  be  useless  for  the  purpose, 
and  nothing  but  the  torture  of  animals  and  the  de- 
moralization of  men  will  suffice  for  its  progress — then, 
in  God's  name,  I  say,  let  physiology  stop  at  the 
point  it  has  reached,  even  till  the  day  of  doom.^-I 
am,  Sir,  with  apologies  for  the  length  of  this  letter, 

yours,  etc. 

Frances  Power  Cobbe 


Certainly,  as  regards  the  ethics  of  vivisection, 
nothing  more  eloquent  has  ever  been  written  than 
this  closing  paragraph. 

In  a  letter  to  the  London  Times  in  December,  1884, 
Miss  Cobbe  writes  as  follows  : 

TO  THE  EDITOR. 

Sir, — In  your  article  on  this  subject  on  Saturday 
last  you  called  upon  the  opponents  of  vivisection  to 
answer  certain  questions.  As  I  have  been  intrusted 
for  many  years  with  the  hon.  secretaryship  of  the 
leading  anti-vivisectionist  society,  I  beg  to  offer  you 
the  following  replies  to  those  questions  : — 

You  ask  first,  Do  we  "deny  'that  vivisection  is 
capable  of  yielding  knowledge  of  service  to  man  ? " 
We  are  not  so  rash  as  to  deny  that  any  practice,  even 
the  most  immoral  conceivable,  might  possibly  yield 


90  APPENDIX. 

knowledge  of  service  to  man  ;  and,  in  particular,  we 
do  not  deny  that  the  vivisection  of  human  beings  by 
the  surgeons  of  classic  times,  and  again  by  the  great 
anatomists  of  Italy  in  the  15th  century,  may  very 
possibly  have  yielded  knowledge  to  man,  and  be 
capable,  if  revived,  of  yielding  still  more.  We  have, 
however,  for  a  long  time  back  called  on  the  advo- 
cates of  the  vivisection  of  dogs,  monkeys,  &c. ,  to 
furnish  evidence  of  the  beneficial  results  of  their  work, 
not  as  setting  at  rest  the  question  of  its  morality,  but 
as  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  justify  them  in 
coming  into  the  court  of  public  opinion  as  defendants 
of  a  practice  obviously  (as  the  Royal  Commissioners 
reported)  "liable  from  its  very  nature  to  great  abuse. " 

We  must  be  excused  if  we  now  hold  it  to  be  de- 
monstrated that,  whether  vivisection  be  or  be  not 
"capable  of  yielding  useful  knowledge,"  it  certainly 
yields  only  a  scanty  crop  of  it.  Were  there  any- 
thing like  an  abundant  harvest,  such  a  sample  as  this 
would  not  have  been  produced  with  so  much  pomp 
for  public  scrutiny.  In  short,  we  think  with  Dr. 
Leffingwell  that,  "if  pain  could  be  measured  by 
money,  there  is  no  mining  company  in  the  world 
which  would  sanction  prospecting  in  such  barren 
regions. " 

You  ask  us,  Sir,  secondly,  "Do  we  affirm  that  the 
benefit  of  mankind  is  not  an  adequate  or  sufficient 
justification  for  the  infliction  of  pain  on  animals?" 
We  have  two  answers  to  this  question. 


APPENDIX.  9I 

Assuming  that  by  vivisection  benefits  might  be 
obtained  for  human  bodies,  we  hold  that  the  evil 
results  of  the  practice  on  human  minds  would  more 
than  counterbalance  any  such  benefits.  The  cow- 
ardice and  pitilessness  involved  in  tying  down  a  dog 
on  a  table  and  slowly  mangling  its  brain,  its  eyes, 
its  entrails;  the  sin  committed  against  love  and 
fidelity  themselves  when  a  creature  capable  of  dying 
of  grief  on  his  master's  grave  is  dealt  with  as  a  mere 
parcel  of  material  tissues,  "valuable  for  purposes  of 
research  " — these  are  basenesses  for  which  no  physi- 
cal advantages  would  compensate,  and  the  prevalence 
of  such  a  heart-hardening  process  among  our  young 
men  would,  we  are  convinced,  detract  more  from  the 
moral  interests  of  our  nation  than  a  thousand  cases 
of  recovery  from  disease  would  serve  those  of  a 
lower  kind.  Even  life  itself  ought  not  to  be  saved  by 
such  methods,  any  more  than  by  the  cannibalism  of 
the  men  of  the  "Mignonette." 

Our  second  answer  is  yet  more  brief.  We  do  not 
"  deny  that  the  benefit  of  man  is  a  sufficient  justifica- 
tion for  inflicting  pain  upon  animals,"  provided  that 
pain  is  kept  within  moderate  bounds,  nor  yet  to  tak- 
ing life  from  them  in  a  quick  and  careful  manner.  But 
we  do  deny  the  right  of  man  to  inflict  torture  upon 
brutes,  and  thus  convert  their  lives  from  a  blessing 
into  a  curse.  Such  torture  has  been  inflicted  upon 
tens  of  thousands  of  animals  by  vivisection  ;  and  no 


92  APPENDIX. 

legislation  that  ingenuity  can  devise  will,  we  believe, 
suffice  to  guard  against  the  repetition  of  it  so  long  as 
it  is  sanctioned  in  any  way  as  a  method  of  research. 
The  use  of  vivisection — if  it  have  any  use — is  practi- 
cally inseparable  from  abuse.  We  therefore  call 
upon  our  countrymen  to  forego  the  poor  bribes  of 
possible  use  which  are  offered  to  them,  and  of  which 
we  have  now  seen  a  "unique  and  impressive "  ex- 
ample, and  generously  and  manfully  to  say  of  vivi- 
section as  they  once  said  of  slavery  "We  will  have 

none  of  it" 

I  am,  Sir,  yours,  etc., 

Frances  Power  Cobbe. 

Hengwrt,  Dolgelly,  Dec.  28,  1884. 


APPENDIX.  Q3 


II. 


[Report  of  American  Anti  vivisection  Society,  Jan.  iSSS.] 
There  remain  two  grounds  to  adopt :  one  the  total 
abolition  of  all  experiments  ;  the  other  the  total  aboli- 
tion of  all  painful  experiments.  This  latter  position, 
which  is  the  one  that  Dr.  Bigelow  of  Boston  and  Dr. 
Leffingwell  have  assumed,  has  engaged  our  attention 
for  a  long  time  ;  but,  after  bestowing  upon  it  careful 
consideration,  we  feel  that  we  must  give  it  up  as  im- 
practicable. To  secure  immunity  from  pain  there 
must  be  absolutely  perfect  anaesthesia.  This  can  be 
only  obtained  in  two  ways  :  one  is  by  trusting  to  the 
experimenter  himself  to  give  sufficient  of  the  anaes- 
thetic ;  the  other  to  insist  that  an  assistant  shall  be 
present  for  the  express  purpose  of  keeping  the  animal 
under  perfect  anaesthesia.  Now  is  it  anyway  likely 
that  either  of  these  conditions  would  be  observed  ?  " 


III. 

[From  the  '■'■Therapeutic  Gazette,"  Detroit,  Aug.,  1SS0.] 
'*  Vivisection  is  grossly  abused  in  the  United  States. 
*         *         We  would  add  our  condemnation  of  the 
ruthless  barbarity  which  is  every  winter  perpetrated 


94  APPENDIX. 

in  the  Medical  Schools  of  this  country.  History 
records  some  frightful  atrocities  perpetrated  in  the 
name  of  Religion  ;  but  it  has  remained  for  the 
enlightenment  and  humaneness  of  this  century  to 
stultify  themselves  by  tolerating  the  abuses  of  the 
average  physiological  laboratory — all  conducted  in 
the  name  of  Science.  There  is  only  one  way  to  pro- 
gress in  Therapeutics  ;  and  that  is  by  clinical  obser- 
vation ;  the  noting  of  the  action  of  individual  drugs 
under  particular  diseased  conditions.  He  who  has 
the  largest  practice  and  is  the  keenest  observer,  and 
the  most  systematic  recorder  of  v/hat  he  sees,  does 
the  most  to  advance  Medicine." 


IV. 

[From  editorial  in  "The  Spectator^  London,  July  if,  iggo.] 

1 '  A  memorial  for  the  absolute  abolition  of  vivisec- 
tion has  been  presented  to  Mr.  Gladstone  with  a  great 
many  most  influential  signatures  attached.  For  our 
own  part,  were  the  experiments  on  the  inoculation  of 
animal  diseases  excepted, — experiments  which,  we 
venture  to  say,  have  sometimes  proved  of  the  greatest 
^alue  to  animals  themselves, — we  should,  on  the 
whole,  be  content  to  go  with  the  abolitionists,  not 
because  we  think  all  experiments,  especially  when 
conducted  under  strict  anaesthetics,  wrong,  but  be- 
cause when  they  are  permitted  at  all  it  is  so  extremely 


APPENDIX.  95 

difficult  to  enforce  properly  and  fully  humane  con- 
ditions. Dr.  A.  Leffingwell  has  sufficiently  shown 
in  the  able  paper  in  the  July  Scribner 's  Magazine,  how 
extremely  few  remedies  of  value  have  resulted  from 
this  awfully  costly  expenditure  of  anguish.  'If  pain 
could  be  estimated  in  money'  he  justly  says,  'no 
corporation  would  be  satisfied  with  such  a  waste  of 
capital.'  Take,  as  the  single  illustration  of  this  most 
weighty  sentence,  Dr.  Leffingwell's  statement  that 
what  the  late  Dr.  Sharpey  called  '  Magen die's 
infamous  experiment'  on  the  stomach  of  the  dog, 
has  been  repeated  200  times  without  establishing  to 
the  satisfaction  of  scientific  physiologists  the  theory 
for  which  that  act  of  wickedness  was  first  committed. 
No  wonder  the  society  for  the  Protection  of  Animals 
from  Vivisection  eoes  to  extremes." 


ririVEF. 


&  M 


Mk 


*' 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 

DAY  ftp  ■^Q'»"SJ>ftff^C^JGtlL«S.FVFMTH  DAY 
OVERDF- 


'ICLF|(N),i 


31 





7M 


y 


YB  26936 


Li- 


u 


3 .-"/ 


T 


sM 


